COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA2 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE3 Room 400, City Hall6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, March 29, 20117 10:10 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA10 COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE11 COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN12 COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR.13 COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER14 COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN15 COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO, JR. COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO16 BILLS 110135, 110136, 110137 and 110138 RESOLUTION 11016118 - - -20 2
Good2 morning. This is a continued public3 hearing of the Whole.4 The Chair recognizes5 Mr. McPherson.6 MR. McPHERSON: Continuation7 hearings of Resolution 110161, the City's8 Five Year Plan; Bill No. 110135, Capital9 Program, 2012 to 2017; Bill No. 110136,10 the Capital Budget for 2012; Bill No.11 110137, the Operating Budget for 2012;12 Bill No. 110138 for the wage tax. And13 we're taking testimony today on Bill No.14 110137, the Operating Budget for Fiscal15 2012.16
First17 department.18 MR. McPHERSON: The first19 department is the Division of Technology.20 (Witnesses approached witness21 table.)22
Good23 morning. Welcome. Kindly identify24 yourself for the record and proceed with25 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 your testimony.2
Good morning,3 Council President Verna and other members4 of Council. I am Thomas T. 12 The Division of Technology is13 in its ninth month of the consolidation14 of all technology under one centralized15 group and leadership. During this16 period, we have brought together the17 personnel and budgets of 29 consolidated18 agencies and seven MOU agencies into one19 family. 22 The Mayor has stated a minimum goal of 2523 percent OEO participation in government24 contracting, and the Division stated in25 6 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 last year's testimony that we had an2 internal stretch goal of 35 percent. To3 accomplish this, the executive team has4 taken the challenge on personally, having5 collectively met one on one with over 306 OEO-certified firms so that we might get7 to know the community and the8 capabilities and the capacity it9 represents. Furthermore, we have10 participated in and/or sponsored events11 that both reach out to and help connect12 OEO vendors with large companies. For13 example, the team worked through the14 Pennsylvania Minority Business Enterprise15 Center to promote events such as the IT16 Summit held on July 14th, 2010 and17 Pennsylvania Minority Business Enterprise18 Center-sponsored information sessions on19 March 9th, May 4th and November 12th of20 2010. And the work has paid off. For21 example, in FY09, our awards were just22 under 20 percent. In FY10, they were 2523 percent. 25 7 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 With three months left in the fiscal2 year, we believe we will achieve our 353 percent target. 8 While executing the9 consolidation without impacting10 day-to-day operations has proved11 challenging, the strategy has also12 produced efficiencies and improved our13 effectiveness. 16 In addition to the above, we17 have also been diligently investigating18 other ways to generate efficiencies. For19 example, we are in ongoing discussions20 around enterprise licensing agreements21 for our databases, document management22 tools and office automation suite. We23 have been investigating a number of24 managed service offerings for things like25 9 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 phone service, centralized printing and2 other specific applications. We are also3 reviewing cloud computing services for4 such things as secondary or tertiary data5 center locations to better meet the6 requirements of Department of Homeland7 Security, as well as our own Disaster8 Recovery and Continuity of Operation9 plans. 12 We are proud of our13 accomplishments to date and we have14 managed through significant challenges in15 order to achieve them. For example,16 underway is the conversion of our current17 e-mail system to a newer, more modern one18 for all agencies. Over the last few19 months, we have piloted this new e-mail20 system for all of the Division's 123421 Market Street location personnel and22 several staff in the Managing Director's23 and Mayor's Office. 2 Additionally, in the coming3 months, the Division will work with the4 City leadership as we complete a citywide5 prioritization of over 300 IT projects in6 conjunction with the Managing Director,7 Deputy Mayors and department8 Commissioners. This process will align9 technical projects with the Division's10 and departments' tactical and strategic11 needs to better focus our IT resources12 where they are needed most. To do this,13 we consider over 20 factors, such as14 whether it affects public safety, whether15 it is revenue generating, whether16 external funds are available, whether it17 is a legislative or mandated initiative,18 whether the current system is unstable,19 whether it impacts multiple groups and20 whether the current support staff are21 projected to leave the City within the22 next four years. 2
Thank3 you very much. I see just about all of4 my colleagues have their lights on, but I5 would like to start with a few questions.6 The Division of Technology's7 Operating and Capital Budgets have8 material increases in Fiscal 2011. One9 of the issues that these funds would10 address was the City's Internet access.11 It appears that Internet access continues12 to be a problem. Can someone explain why13 we are still having a problem with the14 Internet, what is going to be done and15 how are we going to correct this problem?16
Sure. This has17 continued to be an ongoing issue, and we18 know it's a source of great19 dissatisfaction with a number of people,20 but the reason the Internet speeds have21 been what they are is because the City22 actually only has one very low-speed23 connection. We have ordered and have in24 place two additional connections that are25 13 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 about, I think, 18 times as fast. We2 have also -- or will have by next week --3 placed an order for the equipment to4 handle that. So in order for us to5 increase it, we have to pay the6 communications company for a faster7 connection and we have to put about a8 half a million dollars worth of equipment9 in to handle all the City needs.10 We hope to have -- we11 identified it. We specked it out. We12 know what we need, and hopefully we will13 have those orders placed by next week.14 So we anticipate sometime in the next 6015 days, assuming every piece of equipment16 is already on a contract, you know, all17 of those types of variables, that you18 will start to see an increase in your19 speed in the Internet.20
The23 Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo for a24 point of information.25 14 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
If in fact5 we're not on the 60-day track, couldn't a6 temporary relief to this problem be that7 we use one of the providers, like Comcast8 or Verizon? We have a lot of wires from9 them coming to this building and other10 City buildings. Why couldn't that be11 temporary relief since they have the12 infrastructure that could be helpful? I13 mean, I just can't imagine how we even do14 business here, with the quality of our15 e-mail, our quality of our Internet16 service.17 So I think you really need to18 pursue especially the hot spots, maybe19 the Police Department, maybe other places20 that temporarily they need to be on an21 outside provider. I'm sure the22 securities can be filled in to provide23 what you need.24
Great suggestion.25 15 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 We've looked into that suggestion several2 times before. We are at a point now --3 we still have to bid those things out,4 who gets to be the provider, because5 there are more than one provider. At the6 rate we are now, we are literally sitting7 there with equipment about to be ordered8 to solve the problem, and we feel that it9 makes the most -- it's both the fastest10 and the most economical for the City.11
Well, I do12 believe that Comcast already by our code13 provides some TV service as part of14 the -- forgive me for not knowing the15 exact words -- the deal that we have with16 them, that I'm sure that if we approach17 them and told them that the belt is18 bursting here, that we need some relief,19 I'm sure that they would work with us,20 especially in areas of government that21 are in serious trouble, as we've been22 hearing for months and years.23 Thank you, Madam President.24 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:25 16 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 You're welcome.2 Your department is projecting3 to receive $21.5 million in cable4 franchise fees for FY 2011, which is5 being reduced to $17.6 million in FY6 2012. Can you explain this reduction?7
President Verna,8 I'm going to ask my Deputy CIO for9 Communication, who is intimately involved10 with that, to come up.11
Thank12 you.13 (Witness approached witness14 table.)15
Good morning,16 Council President. My name is Joseph17 James, Deputy Chief Information Officer18 for Communications and Operations.19 The reduction in the cable20 revenues is, a late payment we received21 in this fiscal year boosted that number22 to the $21 million, and what we've done23 is reset the number back to what it24 should be at $17 million. That's what's25 17 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 in next year's budget.2
Again6 on of your budget detail, you7 show an increase in FY 2012 of $1.38 million to Verizon for telecommunication9 services. Can you explain what these10 additional funds are going to be used11 for? of the budget detail.12
Council President,13 that was a shift of money from one14 division within Division of Technology's15 budget, from our Core budget into the16 Communications area of the budget.17
The20 Chair recognizes Councilman Green for a21 point of information.22
I'm sorry.23 Can you be more specific about that? I24 don't follow that response.25 18 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
While they look up2 that, Councilman Green, the exact line,3 as part of the reorganizing and4 consolidating, we have the four separate5 groups within the Division:6 Communication, Department, Core. And so7 as part of the budget process, we tried8 to make sure that the right dollars were9 in the right group.10
I11 understand, but it shows Fiscal 201012 obligations of ten eight nine five,13 estimated obligations for '11 of eight14 five nine and then Fiscal 2012 obligation15 level going to nine eight two eight, all16 in the same line item on , Section17 21. So I don't understand the response,18 because it doesn't appear to be accurate,19 but I'll come back to this in my20 questioning if you're looking for it --21
-- so that I24 don't hold people up.25 19 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
As2 we're looking at Section 21, , it3 doesn't show anything as far as increase4 or decrease as far as an internal5 transfer. Would you like to see the6 page?7
Madam President, as8 you can tell, part of the consolidation9 as we've had to try to right size some of10 these, some of the numbers sometimes get11 split. If you would indulge us, I'd like12 to take the question and get you a13 detailed answer, get back to you with a14 detailed answer.15
I'd19 like my sheet back. Thank you.20 And you'll get back to us in21 writing, if you will?22
We're24 going to continue on.25 20 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 On of your detail,2 under the heading of Electric Current,3 $387,000 in FY 2012 for PAID. Can4 someone explain why we are paying PAID5 for electrical services?6
The $360,000 that's9 in the PAID line item on is part10 of the cost for when we acquired the11 EarthLink network.12
When we acquired15 the wireless network from NAC last year,16 part of the bill that was introduced was17 to move the leases that was associated18 with that and the electric charges19 through PAID, so that we're actually20 using PAID as the entity who is actually21 paying for the leases and the electric22 charges.23
On24 of your detail, you're requesting25 21 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 $582,549 for PAID for lease purchases.2 Can someone give us a breakdown as to the3 items being lease purchased, the length4 of the lease and its terms and5 conditions, and I'd like to know was this6 lease approved by City Council, and, if7 so, when?8
It was last, I9 believe, May of last year when we10 introduced the bill for the acquisition11 of the EarthLink wireless network. There12 was two bills. One was for the actual13 purchase, which I believe the14 authorization was around $2.5 million,15 and then there was also a transfer of16 those leases for -- they were long-term17 leases that NAC inherited from EarthLink18 that was transferred over to PAID. So19 there was a number of items in those20 ordinances, which had the list of all of21 the locations. There was approximately22 25 sites that were in that, and some of23 the leases were, I believe, three to five24 years in length. But we can provide you25 22 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 the actual detail and the Council bills.2
Would3 you put that in writing and forward it to4 me, please.5
I7 would like to give my colleagues an8 opportunity to ask questions.9 Councilman Green.10
Thank you,11 Madam Chair.12 Good morning. Thank you for13 your testimony.14 How long have you been on the15 job now as Acting CIO?16
Good. Well,21 there's a lot to do there, so I'm glad22 somebody is directing this.23 Was your department asked to24 prepare one and a half and three percent25 23 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 budget reduction scenarios?2
Thank you.4 I'll get them from the Administration5 when they provide them. I just wanted to6 know.7 So I'd like to get to some8 questions I couldn't ask during the9 Capital hearing, and, that is, the10 Capital Program included 120 million11 investment in technology over six years,12 with 75 million front-loaded in the first13 three years. Almost none of the 2514 million budgeted for FY11 has been spent,15 and I understand that part of that is due16 to our inability to issue bonds timely,17 and then the FY12 spending has been18 reduced from 25 million to 10 million.19 I really want to -- so the20 question is, are we going to spend 3521 million between FY11 and FY12?22
So what is25 24 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 the plan to spend that money and where2 will it be spent?3
Well, as I said in4 my testimony, we are actually going5 through a prioritization process with the6 Managing Directors and the Deputy Mayors.7 We know there are certain critical things8 that must be done. We must start to9 build out our data centers that are10 falling apart. We know we must upgrade11 the network speed that we talked about12 earlier. But we've also discovered -- no13 one likes me to say this, but I always14 say that I discovered that when we15 started to do all of this work, we16 realized that it's a little like doing17 renovation, when you start to pull the18 wall down in a room that you're about to19 renovate, you find all the ugly wiring20 underneath of it that has to be replaced21 as well. So one of the things that we22 did was, as we started to do the network,23 we discovered a number of operational24 issues that had to be fixed.25 25 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 So it is our belief that we're2 going to spend roughly -- prioritization3 is not yet done -- that we're going to4 spend roughly 19 million of those across5 citywide applications, whether it be the6 Procurement system we talked about, the7 OEO, the lobbyists, that type of thing.8 And then we will spend the remaining9 balance on actual hardware infrastructure10 type projects, such as the network and11 servers and data center build-outs, those12 types of things.13
So when you14 say we're going to spend it on15 Procurement and other things like that,16 it's my understanding from the17 Administration that we're going to18 perform workflow process studies first so19 that we don't implement technology over20 very poor and inefficient processes as we21 have done in the past.22
Has that24 begun in the departments that you think25 26 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 are going to be priorities?2
There's two parts3 to this answer. We have recognized that4 we have a larger project that we all5 refer to as ERP project to put in an6 integrated suite of applications. As7 part of that project, we realize that8 that was a huge project and needed a9 dedicated both director as well as a team10 to manage the various contractors,11 consultants that we end up pairing with12 and partner with. It's a complicated13 project. We have been looking for that14 individual for some time. We've enlisted15 the help of the Private Sector Board and16 we've enlisted the help of recruiting17 firms to get that individual.18 That part has not begun yet.19 So the business process improvement20 necessary for that particular larger task21 is not, but we have been doing ongoing22 business process improvement in a number23 of areas, because a number of the24 applications cannot wait for the larger25 27 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 system. Sometimes you have to make a2 call to do something smaller ahead of3 time because it's critical. And like if4 you take the property data is a great5 example. We've documented the process of6 data and information and all of that.7 It's a very ugly picture in fact, but8 we've documented that in order to not do9 that in the new system.10
So what14 you're saying is of the 19 million you15 just mentioned, that does not include the16 horizontal replacement of the financial17 and ERP packages of the City?18
It does. I said19 but we have not started in earnest that20 project, because we're looking for the21 leader of that project.22
Okay. And I23 imagine we need that leader and a24 permanent CIO.25 28 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
So are we3 realistically going to be able to spend4 $19 million on that project and related5 hardware and other -- in other words,6 break down for me how much is fixing the7 network and hardware versus how much is8 part of the ERP/financial package/9 horizontal implementation.10
First part of your11 question is, we will not spend 19 million12 on the ERP project. The prioritization13 is going to tell us what -- we know the14 ERP project will be one of the ones that15 gets started. I'm confident of that. I16 don't know what else. For example, I'll17 give you the cashiering system. We've18 gotten to a point where we know it is19 unstable and it needs to be replaced20 ahead of anything else.21
The system that3 collects the revenue when you come in to4 pay your bills and so forth, that system.5 That is a system that two years ago we6 didn't realize was in as bad a shape as7 it was. That's a system that we figure8 is going to take a couple million of the9 $19 million to get started.10
Now, for11 example, if we're going to use Oracle,12 for example -- I don't know who we're13 finally choosing for the financial14 package and ERP -- we would want to have15 that implemented prior to putting in16 place a new cashiering system so that we17 know we're going to have a fully18 integrated solution, we know we've chosen19 the right product for what you're20 referring to as the cashiering system21 that easily integrates with whatever22 final horizontal, ERP and financial23 package implementation we have.24
So like I2 don't understand how we can spend that3 first before we've decided on the4 horizontal layers, which drive really5 every other vertical decision in6 departments and specific applications7 like cashiering.8
Sure. I can9 address that. If the City of10 Philadelphia were 500 people, it would be11 a no-brainer. In the ideal world, we12 would like -- it's kind of hard trying to13 see you, Councilman Green.14 In the ideal world, we would15 love to put it all in as one integrated16 suite at the same time. The size of the17 City and the complexity of the City, it's18 not possible. So we have to make tough19 choices that may not be perfect, but20 they're smart. And what I mean by that21 is, for example, if we were doing ERP, we22 would not put in the GL, the AP, the HR,23 the Pensions, the Payroll, the 3-1-1, all24 in one shot. It's a recipe for disaster.25 31 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Everybody that's tried to do it will tell2 you, you don't do a big bang. So if we3 were going to put in HR and payroll4 first, we would have had to build5 interfaces to the old GL anyway.6 We have a situation here with a7 couple systems, the Procurement system,8 this cashiering system, the systems are9 unstable. They will not last as long as10 it will take for us to put in the whole11 ERP suite. So we have to make a12 management call to spend as little as we13 can in this replacement system to get14 benefit today and over the next year or15 two and then have it plugged in. And it16 will initially probably just be17 interfaced to and five years from now18 maybe replaced with a new one. But the19 strategy is always the minimum you can do20 to get a stable system that meets your21 current needs.22
Right. I23 mean, this is our only opportunity to24 have input in how you're going to spend25 32 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 that money up front, so what I'd really2 like to see is what you think has to be,3 in writing to the Chair, what has to be4 spent now, what your plan is for the ERP,5 how far you are along in that financial6 package.7
I truly9 think even if we do a small10 implementation at the top level, we have11 to decide what package we're going to use12 so that we can at least choose underlying13 systems that we know easily integrate14 into what our likely choice is.15
Rather than17 having to use third-party providers like18 Mindshare and other stuff to make19 everything talk to each other.20 It doesn't sound to me like21 we're on a path to spend, to go back to22 the beginning of the question, 35 million23 by the end of 2012 if we still have to do24 all the work within the departments and25 33 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 we still haven't chosen the horizontal2 layers in terms of the financial package3 and ERP.4
Right, but all of5 this 35 million is not going to be spent6 on ERP. ERP is a long spend. It's a7 five-year spend. What we've laid out8 here and what our plans show right now9 is, we tried to budget -- one of the10 reasons we reduced our request for11 capital this year was because we didn't12 think we could spend 50 million.13
That was16 unrealistic, in our eyes.17 In terms of spending the 3518 million, though, we thought that was19 realistic to spend. For example, we do20 not have sufficient system monitoring21 capability within the City to be able to22 respond and know when things break fast23 enough. That, by itself, inside of a24 three-month period once an RFP, proposal,25 34 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 selection, all of that, that could inside2 of a 90-day period be $2 million. Some3 of these things are fairly4 straightforward to like if you're going5 to put in CA or HP OpenView or any of6 those types of tools, you bring in a team7 who literally set it up, configure it and8 you got a 90-day project. ERP is a much,9 much longer one, because you have to work10 business process and organizational11 change and training 27,000 people. It's12 a much longer process.13
Well, if you14 could provide it to the Chair, because I15 certainly would be -- I certainly16 personally -- I don't speak for anybody17 else -- want to see how you're actually18 planning to spend that money and on what,19 before I would vote to appropriate it.20
Okay. So22 related to that, I think during testimony23 by our Budget Director, we agreed that24 investments in technology should be25 35 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 measured in terms of productivity2 enhancements rather than sort of hardware3 and software purchased. And so my4 question is, is DOT involved in any kind5 of estimation right now about what6 savings or what productivity increases7 will result from the spend that you're8 proposing over the next couple of years9 and over the course of the six-year10 Capital Plan?11
So much of what we12 are doing are critical things that we13 have to do no matter what, that we have14 not sit down and tried to do sort of an15 ROI, that type of thing that you're16 talking about. I mean, the network speed17 that President Verna spoke of, that's a18 critical thing that even if it was a19 negative R, you would need to do it just20 to be able to do business. So we have21 not set about doing any formal ROI.22
There is an23 ROI for that, though, right? Because in24 Council offices and I'm sure in many25 36 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 offices across the City, people are2 waiting for documents to download,3 they're waiting for access. So there is4 huge time waste because of our5 inefficient Internet access. So there is6 probably a positive ROI on that spend.7 You can measure an ROI, and we should for8 every project that we're going to spend9 real money on.10
You asked me were11 we engaged in any ROI, and the answer is,12 no, we're not yet engaged in any of13 those.14
Okay. Well,15 Councilman Kenney introduced a bill the16 other day which would require a17 cost-benefit analysis, and I have a bill18 that's about two years old which would19 require a cost-benefit analysis for all20 capital expenditure. And so I think21 you're going to see one of those as law22 by next budget time. So I would suggest23 that that's how the department begins to24 think about spend.25 37 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 I have many more questions, but2 I'll yield and come back in the next3 round.4 Thank you.5
Thank6 you very much.7 The Chair recognizes Councilman8 Jones.9
Thank you,10 Madam President.11 And I understand that it is12 both Bill Green and Bill Greenlee's13 birthday, and as a birthday present, let14 him talk as long as he wanted.15 Happy birthday, Bill.16 A couple of quick questions.17 Number one, I took out the testimony from18 two years ago before it was the19 Department of Technology, when it was20 MOS, and I started looking down at the21 testimony, and then I read yours again.22 And it is very, very similar, yet I'm23 going to go micro and then macro on this24 issue.25 38 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Micro, my eight-year-old2 granddaughter can get on the Internet3 faster than I can using our system here,4 that Fred Flintstone probably used that5 Dell computer we have.6 We need to be able to access7 information in a realtime fashion so that8 we can make good decisions for the9 citizens of Philadelphia. It is not to10 play games on it. It is not to check my11 Facebook, because I have my own12 technology to do that, but my staff have13 to be able to research legislation from14 around the world to look at best15 practices. Without that, we are woefully16 unarmed to make the decisions to be the17 stewards that we need to be.18 We introduced a resolution a19 while back. I cannot remember the number20 of it. Here it is. It is Resolution21 090368, calling into question how we can22 get a better system here, and we have yet23 to achieve that goal.24 So what I'm saying to you is,25 39 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 we need some help on that. We need to2 look at whether it should be in the3 clouds or in a mainframe or in a local4 area network. I really don't care. I'm5 an end user. I push the button and I6 want the information.7 So just from our small micro8 involvement with technology, we are9 frustrated. And I'm pretty sure that if10 we introduced a resolution tomorrow to11 get money from your budget to solve our12 own problem, I could get nine votes. I13 believe that. But we want to work as a14 team with the other departments to be a15 part of a larger question that we want16 you to solve.17 So having said that, we're18 going to look forward to you solving this19 problem. I've looked at the testimony.20 I'm still a freshman, but I can read. I21 remember what was said the year before,22 the year before that, and I'm saying to23 you that we are growing impatient with24 it.25 40 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Other legislative bodies, for2 example, have laptops and computers right3 at their desk. And I know these4 budgetary times we should not -- but a5 plug under here would help that we6 could -- technology? Electricity. So7 that we could plug into independently8 acquired technology to upgrade and be9 able to do that. These are simple things10 and simple solutions.11 The other bill that I would12 bring your attention to -- and I read13 your testimony where you looked at14 different RFPs, where you actually did a15 review of the technology and said that16 this Solution A is better than Solution B17 and, therefore, we think we should18 restructure and do it this way.19 Do you do that often? When a20 department says we want to solve it21 through these series of hardware,22 software solutions, do you evaluate it23 and then offer alternative strategies?24
We do. I was25 41 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 trying to think off the top of my head2 some of these things I go through, but we3 try to take every potential option for a4 department in consideration, and it's a5 difficult job because of where our6 current infrastructure is and -- for7 example, one of the departments was8 looking at -- well, two departments was9 looking -- actually, three was looking at10 an IVR system, and so we said rather than11 buy three separate systems --12
I'm sorry. The15 integrated voice recording, the voice16 response, 3-1-1, L&I, Revenue.17 So we were looking at what they18 were -- evaluating what they were looking19 at to see how we would put it together to20 be a single solution that would be21 cheaper and more sustainable for the22 City, yet still meet their needs.23
Did you24 realize cost savings based on that25 42 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 analysis?2
Can you5 document, just roughly, not to the penny,6 how much did you save the City of7 Philadelphia by doing that type of8 calculation and analysis?9
I would say it's17 probably in the tens or maybe even18 hundreds of thousands. These systems are19 expensive.20
All right.21 And I think and applaud you for that type22 of analysis.23 Resolution No. 100848 is asking24 and begging that all City departments25 43 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 review contracting in, contracting out2 and whether those solutions could be done3 by internal staff or whether or not it is4 better to contract out with someone who5 has -- or an entity, a firm, a company6 that has a higher degree of knowledge and7 expertise in an area. So you do that on8 a regular occasion?9
Yeah, we do it on a10 regular occasion, because sometimes --11 there's two parts to this answer, or more12 than two, actually. We take a look at13 what our staff can do, and our staff --14 we have to factor two very important15 things in. First one is skills, and16 second, we have to keep the day-to-day17 running, and even though some may not18 feel like we keep it running perfectly,19 that's what our staff's primarily duties20 is, to keep it running. So sometimes21 it's a matter of we just need the22 additional capacity for a short period of23 time as we put it in.24 It is our, the executive team25 44 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 in place today, it is our strategy to2 always make sure when we do that, we3 integrate our current staff in both4 either with skill sets they currently5 have or as part of the contract, for them6 to be trained to attain skills. We know7 we don't have -- the department don't8 have --9
Again,10 Resolution No. 100848 calls for11 departments like yours to do that12 analysis, and what you have testified13 here today is that has resulted in a14 decision that says whether to keep it15 in-house because it's cheaper, more16 effective to do it or to contract it out17 because we don't want to tool up in that18 way long term, which is a basic analysis,19 which has saved taxpayers' dollars. Is20 that your testimony today?21
All right.23 I'm glad of that. And future departments24 that are about to come up; in particular,25 45 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 the Procurement Department, we want more2 of that.3 As we look at the -- how4 much -- and two things. I'm going to let5 my colleague Wilson Goode ask you about6 subcontracting opportunities and things7 like that, because I'm sure he's going to8 pursue that line of question. So I will9 defer that, but by way of use of10 technology, which is something that my11 colleague Bill Green has long been an12 advocate for, how much have we saved by13 converting, using technology, converting14 from paper to electronic transfer of15 data? Have we documented what those16 savings have been?17
No, Councilman18 Jones, we have not documented those19 savings.20
In order to23 document those savings, you would have24 needed to initially have done a baseline25 46 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 of what it was costing you. That, in and2 of itself, is a project, and to date, we3 have not done it. I'm not going to tell4 you -- I can't answer why we wouldn't do5 it ultimately. That's what we want.6 We have been on a path, the7 Division has been on a path, of trying to8 get the technology in as fast as we can.9 We have so many clients such as yourself10 who tells us how desperately they need11 it, that we just haven't taken the -- we12 had not taken the additional step of13 documenting the savings.14
I think you15 probably will have a positive story to16 tell. Now, you're going to have certain17 inefficiencies because breaking down all18 of the silos that I see in your19 testimony. I get that. But when you20 make a major transformation, it is21 important to this body and probably more22 important to the Chair of Technology over23 there that we start to create that24 baseline so that we can say we're moving25 47 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 in the right direction for a number of2 reasons. One, because the end user, the3 citizen, is convenienced by the use of4 technology, but the City of5 Philadelphia's budget is in fact impacted6 positively by the use of that technology7 and, therefore, the original expenditure,8 equipment, personnel, training, software,9 all made sense.10
So we're12 going to -- you're the new guy and you're13 the only one probably newer than us, but14 we want to look at that baseline and15 measure going forward what those16 technological impacts are on our budget17 and our improved service delivery.18
Thank you,20 Madam President.21 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:22 You're welcome.23 The Chair recognizes Councilman24 Greenlee.25 48 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Thank2 you, Madam President.3 Good morning, gentlemen.4
Good morning.5 COUNCILMAN GREENLEE:6 Mr. Jones, one of my questions is going7 to be similar to what Councilman Jones8 had asked you. And I know you've only9 been here a couple months, but I10 understand that there's been a lot of11 discussion about Council getting its own12 server. It's apparently been promised.13 Can you give us any kind of timeframe on14 that?15
I'm not quite16 sure I fully appreciate the question. We17 have talked to -- Council has its own IT18 staff that maintains all of your PCs and19 internal operations, and we've talked to20 your folks, your administrative lead,21 about what it would take to do a number22 of things, like to separate you23 completely, to give additional servers.24 We have discussed what those numbers25 49 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 were, and the decisions were made at the2 time that that was not cost effective for3 you.4 Now, when I say I don't5 quite -- I don't know what server you're6 talking about. My apologies. The7 biggest issue has been so far was the8 network speed and the impact of having9 everybody log in together. We literally10 just met with a lot of your staff members11 yesterday and walked through all of those12 issues. We, as I said earlier in13 testimony, we are driving very hard to14 try to get that Internet speed problem15 resolved, we hope, fingers crossed,16 within the next 60 days, but there are17 always those issues that we can't18 control.19
I20 understand. Okay. I appreciate that.21 One other question. Do you22 manage the BRT website? Is that23 something you do?24
It just sits on our25 50 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 site. External folks manage it.2
Because I3 understand there's been a particular4 problem accessing that, and that's a5 place where we go a lot.6
The BRT? I'll look7 into that and get back to you,8 Councilman.9
I10 appreciate that. Thank you.11 Thank you, Madam President.12 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:13 You're welcome.14 The Chair recognizes Councilman15 Goode.16
Thank you,17 Madam President.18 Good morning, Mr. Jones.19
I note from21 the budget you have about $40 million in22 purchase of services and about $4 million23 in materials, supplies and equipment.24 Can you first explain what the $4025 51 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 million is for?2
Oh, okay. In Class14 200, we purchase software contracts to15 maintain the systems. Like, for example,16 the Pension system runs from a company,17 it's a base system company, called18 Software AG. Just like you get Windows19 updates on your PC when there are20 patches, we purchase maintenance21 contracts from companies like that, sort22 of as an insurance.23 We also purchase a number of24 contracts where we are trying to rebuild25 52 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 the ePayment system for the City. We2 didn't have enough capacity from some3 technical skills and so we added to, we4 augmented our current staff with those.5 So we have a joint team.6
So you7 intend to spend about $42 million on8 purchase of services?9
What's the11 largest contract you will award in Fiscal12 Year '12?13
Yes, it's a18 competitive contract. It's in its fourth19 year.20
So there21 would be other people who will bid other22 than Verizon?23
That's Motorola for7 lease payments for our radios and so8 forth.9
Verizon,14 yeah. The largest contract is Verizon.15 How much is that contract for?16
Across all funds,17 Water, Aviation, General, it's about $1518 million.19
So Motorola is22 really, we think of, as two. There's an23 $8.4 million payment, lease payment, we24 make and then there's a $3.6 million for25 54 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 radio maintenance for all the emergency2 radios.3
Just to be clear,9 the 8.4 is just for payments. It's10 not -- it's a lease payment. So it's not11 renewable. We make the four payments and12 we're done.13 The Motorola one was just14 started last year. It's in its first15 year.16
Does Verizon20 subcontract with disadvantaged21 businesses?22
Are there24 subcontracting opportunities within the25 55 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 contract?2
None that we know3 of. It's all their personnel that we4 know of.5
We don't know of8 any subcontracting that they're doing on9 behalf of the City to support the City10 contract.11
But you know12 what you're purchasing, so are there13 subcontracting opportunities within what14 you're purchasing?15
I'm only hesitating16 to answer the question because the17 services that Verizon provides to us is18 all our data communication, all our19 connections --20
I'm sorry. The23 services they provide to us are very24 unique and specific to what they do in25 56 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 terms of their contract. They're2 providing the voice, the data. They have3 their technicians on staff. Whether or4 not they could contract -- teach other5 companies their systems, I don't feel6 comfortable answering.7
So I'm8 assuming there was no participation goal9 within the RFP?10
There were11 participation goals in the RFP when it12 was put out.13
So how is18 that 10 or 15 percent goal supposed to be19 met?20
Councilman, they21 had listed in their proposal where they22 had subcontracting opportunities, it was23 really around small cabling jobs and it24 was around small services that if they25 57 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 had --2
Okay. So7 there were goals within the RFP. Were8 there goals within the actual contract?9
The details that10 you're asking, I'm not prepared to answer11 today. I would like to get --12
That's13 actually somewhat disturbing. I've made14 it known that I'm asking the same15 questions every department, and rather16 than just deal with what the overall17 goals for the department was and whether18 you're meeting those goals, what I'm19 choosing to do is look at the largest20 contract and walk through the process in21 terms of what's actually happening.22 So I asked the question what's23 the largest contract. You said Verizon.24 It's a $15 million contract.25 58 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 I then asked the question how2 long have they held the contract. You3 said since 2008. It's a renewable4 contract.5 I then asked whether there were6 subcontracting opportunities. At first7 you said there weren't and then you said8 there were. Then you identified those9 opportunities. You said within the RFP10 there was a 10 to 15 percent goal.11 I asked was that goal within12 the actual contract. You said you don't13 know.14 So you don't know whether15 Verizon, which was responding to an RFP16 with a 10 to 15 percent goal and which17 may have received the contract with a 1018 or 15 percent goal, is actually living up19 to that obligation or not. I don't20 understand how you could not know that.21
I appreciate your22 frustration. That contract was put out23 in 2008, and I don't personally know24 that. I should. So I can only apologize25 59 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 to you at this table. I can get this2 information to you.3
Please4 forward that information through the5 Chair. But part of what I expect this6 whole process to reveal is that as long7 as you have renewable contracts, no one8 is probably looking at the contract as9 long as the goods and services are being10 provided, so there's not going to be any11 increased participation. No one is going12 to go back to the vendor and ask for13 something different. But that's what's14 supposed to be happening.15 And also if you're not bidding16 it every year, to some extent it may keep17 you from having to go back to Council in18 certain ways by doing three-year19 renewals, but at the same time, we don't20 know that you're getting any efficiencies21 out of it. You could actually get lower22 bids coming in if it's a competitive23 process.24 So there's going to be a lot of25 60 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 questions about, particularly when2 Procurement comes up, about what3 percentage of our contracts are actually4 renewable contracts, because that may be5 a major problem in terms of both cost6 savings and cost efficiency. And it may7 work that renewable contracts are more8 cost efficient, but don't provide cost9 savings. But it definitely -- in terms10 of the issue of disadvantaged business11 participation, if the deal you have with12 someone is 10 to 15 percent, it shouldn't13 just be in the RFP, it should be in the14 contract, every year you should know what15 they're producing.16
Councilman, we17 agree. That's one of the reasons we are18 personally excited about the OEO system19 that we're trying to stand up, because it20 will allow us to track those kinds of21 numbers and assist not only DOT but each22 department in tracking that, and they are23 very important to us.24
Last25 61 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 question I will ask, last series of2 questions. Is Verizon in compliance with3 the City's living wage and benefits4 standard?5 If you don't know, just say you6 don't know.7
Then please9 forward that information through the10 Chair.11 Thank you, Madam Chair.12 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:13 You're welcome.14 The Chair recognizes Councilman15 Rizzo.16
I have a25 62 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 couple questions here, and if they've2 already been addressed, I was distracted3 there for a minute. I don't want to4 duplicate and take up time.5 I want to go back to that point6 that you made earlier, Mr. James, about7 the electric service that was paid to8 PAID for the transaction that involved9 the purchase of the WiFi. Last week I10 asked you a question about what did that11 transaction cost. Was that number12 included in that number that you gave me?13 I think you said somewhere 2 million14 maybe.15
I gave you the --16 Councilman, I gave you the $2 million17 cost for the acquisition. That's the18 number I gave you the last time we had a19 conversation regarding it.20
It was in the23 Operating Budget. You see there was a $224 million payment out, which was a one-time25 63 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 payment, which is not reflected in the2 budget going forward. That was the3 acquisition cost. I think it was 1.54 overall, but overall it was $2 million.5
The acquisition12 cost to purchase was 2 million, and I13 believe I told you that the run rate runs14 around $900,000 a year. It's in our15 Operating Budget. I think with some of16 the increased electric costs, it's a17 little over that, but that's the numbers18 that we were just talking about earlier19 between PAID and PECO, those electric20 charges in the leases.21
Okay. Good.22 Let me go over these three issues, and,23 again, if you've already addressed them,24 I apologize.25 64 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Code 209 indicates a 1,261,0002 increase for purchases of service3 identified as telephone and4 communications. Can you provide a5 breakdown of this figure that describes6 the nature and necessity of these7 services, please.8
Councilman, are you9 referring to the Class 209 for Verizon,10 $1.2 million increase?11
I think earlier I13 said that was a transfer between classes,14 and if I correct my answer, the $1.215 million reflects an increased cost in the16 run rate because of the additional17 services that we've added. But we can18 try to give you a breakdown of what that19 $1.2 million reflects.20
We have a21 system, a Verizon system right now.22 Let's just talk about telephones. It's23 called Centrex, right?24
It was -- the4 version of Centrex that we have was5 installed in 1994.6
I think we'd7 all agree that there are a lot of new8 technologies, a lot of features that9 would be added features that come with10 telephone switches today. I understand11 that this is still a good buy, if I could12 say. It's a good buy. But it's13 certainly far from current.14 Are we ever planning -- and I15 understand that there was a political16 decision at one time when we purchased17 the Centrex system when Verizon was -- or18 Bell Telephone was thinking about leaving19 Philadelphia. Is Centrex still a good20 investment for this city or are you21 thinking about maybe starting to grow and22 put some switches around the town?23
Councilman, the24 product that we currently have, the25 66 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Centrex 610, is a very good,2 cost-effective product at the price that3 we're paying and is a reliable and stable4 service. As far as the future -- and you5 talk about the changes of technologies6 and different advancements -- I think7 that's part of what we're putting8 together in the new RFP that we're going9 to put out on the street for the new10 Verizon contract, or may not even be11 Verizon. It's going to be whoever the12 service provider is. But we are looking13 at many of the things that have been14 talked about and some of the features and15 benefits that have come up from time16 since 1994.17
We all know18 that police radio system is and hopefully19 won't be as dependent on an outside20 vendor, T1's and things like that,21 hopefully that we will put ourselves in a22 situation with our infrastructure that23 it's not so dependent on outside24 resources, and I think that is one of25 67 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 your goals?2
Next4 question, under Professional Services,5 there is for 2012 allocated $800,0006 identified, Unisys and other providers to7 be determined. The scope of services is8 described as Surveillance Camera Project.9 Could you tell us a little bit about10 that?11
Yes, Councilman.12 That used to be a line item in our budget13 where we were paying Unisys directly for14 providing all the services related to the15 police video surveillance project. Since16 that time, we have reshaped that project17 and we actually are closing out our18 contract with Unisys and taking much of19 the work in-house, but we still need a20 contract for services like the21 installation of camera equipment and22 other services, which we can't currently23 do internally.24
And the last25 68 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 question is, let's talk about the item2 under Maintenance in Support of Computer3 Hardware and Software, specifically the4 Verizon 9-1-1 Vista system. There's a5 $443,000 increase in that item. What6 about the relationship between the 9-1-17 fund and General Fund money?8
Four hundred11 and forty-three thousand, Verizon 9-1-112 Vista --13
.16 I'm sorry. Section 21, ,17 Maintenance in Support of Computer18 Hardware and Software. That's double the19 Fiscal Year '11 allocation.20
Councilman, the 45121 that was in the previous year was a half22 a year allocation. The 895 reflects the23 full year funding for the maintenance in24 support of the 9-1-1 server equipment.25 69 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
When we did the7 original contract for the 9-1-1 services,8 it provided a certain amount of services9 were prepaid up to a period of time and10 then when it expired, we had to fund the11 remaining balance, which was a half a12 year worth of maintenance, which was the13 451, and now we projected the full14 funding into the next year's budget.15
The21 Chair recognizes Councilman Green for a22 point of information.23
Thank you,24 Madam Chair.25 70 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 In response to Councilman2 Rizzo's questions, you just mentioned a3 maintenance contract or that you had4 prepaid services with respect to a 9-1-15 server. Did you issue an RFP for6 maintenance of that server prior to7 simply extending the services, and what8 contract specifically had extensions in9 it that allowed you to extend it without10 issuing an RFP?11
This was a 200512 contract that was done with Verizon as13 part of their 9-1-1 services, and at the14 time, they were -- many of these services15 were identified as services they were16 providing under their 9-1-1 tariff. So17 it wasn't done as an RFP.18 Since that time, we've taken19 the decision that these services need to20 be bid out and will not be part of the21 way we had normally paid it through their22 9-1-1 tariff, and that's why we have the23 funding in here for this line item for a24 full year.25 71 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Not yet. It's part4 of the bid we're all putting together,5 along with all of the services that6 Verizon currently provides.7
Was it bid8 out for the extension for the half a year9 last year?10
We believe we got14 the legal department to approve that15 because of the criticality of it, that we16 were able to put this in place so that we17 can maintain 9-1-1 services.18
Do we have a19 listing of when contracts expire so that20 we can, especially prepaid services or21 other things, so that we don't get stuck22 having to use the same vendor at whatever23 price they put forward instead of doing24 an RFP in a timely way so that we can25 72 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 have open competition and, as Councilman2 Goode points out, potentially allow3 minority vendors and others to have an4 opportunity to win these contracts?5
Yes, Councilman.6 We've been going through a process of7 tracking all of our contracts to make8 sure that, one, they don't expire without9 us knowing about them, and, two, when10 they're planning to be expired, if we can11 put out an RFP or a different procurement12 vehicle to buy those services, that's13 what we're trying to do.14
This is at15 least the second time and I think there16 may be three times that I've been here on17 Council in three years -- or I guess this18 will be my fourth budget process where19 Verizon contracts, whether they were20 prepaid services or some other service,21 expired without our knowing about it or22 without our having prepared in advance23 for that, causing us to have no choice24 but to extend those contracts, and I got25 73 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 to tell you, it's simply not acceptable2 for us to be looking at this yet again.3 With respect to the Unisys --4 the installation you mentioned, the5 Unisys contract, is expiring. We're6 taking those services in-house. Who is7 going to perform the installation8 services?9
You're going12 to bid that work out. So does the Unisys13 contract expire today?14
No. The contract15 has expired -- will expire the end of, I16 believe, the fiscal year.17
Right now we're not20 doing any new installations right now.21 We're maintaining the existing cameras22 that we have, and we have bid out the23 work for additional equipment and24 services to help us with that.25 74 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
There were,2 I think, a number of or at least one3 minority contractor who did all the4 installations for the EarthLink wireless5 network, who are certainly perfectly6 capable of this. So I hope that you're7 going to reach out broadly in this camera8 installation contract.9
Councilman Green,12 one other point to make. On some of the13 stuff with cameras, our own staff is14 doing some of this work as well, pulling15 the wires, but it's the actual camera16 itself that we don't have the training17 out yet.18
And just to21 finish -- thank you, Councilman.22 Just to finish, my final23 question is -- and it's about the24 surveillance cameras -- how many cameras25 75 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 are physically -- the hardware is in2 place on poles with the blue light3 flashing that don't work? Because I ride4 around and I see plastic bags over the5 cameras. That's really a deterrent to a6 criminal, a plastic bag over a7 surveillance camera. So I'm just8 curious, how many do we have that are9 physically installed that don't work and10 have plastic bags over them? I would11 suggest that even if they're not working,12 take the plastic bag off. They don't13 know it doesn't work.14
There's15 approximately 48 cameras that need repair16 right now and there's probably, I'd say,17 less than a handful of cameras that are18 still out there with bags on them that19 also need infrastructure in them for them20 to operate. It's a small number, but the21 48 is the ones that really need repair22 right now.23
I would hope24 you'd agree that maybe the plastic bag,25 76 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 unless you're protecting it from the2 rain, is not the wisest direction when it3 comes to surveillance cameras. So maybe4 the strategy until you get them to work5 would at least take the plastic bag off6 of it. The blue light is flashing, but7 the plastic bag is covering it.8
Councilman, we'll9 consult with the Public Safety Division10 and take that under advisement.11
Great.12 Thank you.13 Thank you, Madam Chair.14 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:15 You're welcome.16 The Chair recognizes17 Councilwoman Blackwell.18
Thank19 you, Madam President.20 I was going to ask the question21 that has been asked with regard to when22 City Council would not have our staff23 come to us all day about being locked up24 and about us having our own Internet25 77 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 capacity, but I believe Councilman2 Greenlee asked the question and it was3 answered. You're hopeful in about 604 days we'll be there?5
Thank8 you. I'll wait for that.9 Thank you, Madam President.10 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:11 You're welcome.12 The Chair recognizes Councilman13 Green.14
Thank you,15 Madam Chair.16 You mentioned a potential RFP17 for phone services. It's long been my18 contention that much of the network19 infrastructure problem could be paid for20 by a VoIP provider without us having to21 do it ourselves, allowing us to just pay22 a monthly fee for that rather than23 spending a lot of dollars up front.24 Could you talk about the RFP25 78 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 for new phone service? I think the2 comment was made in discussion of the3 Centrex system that it is a good system4 and it costs about the same as -- it's a5 fairly priced system, yet for the last6 three years -- and I don't know if it's7 in this year's budget. I don't think8 it's in there. If it is, it's9 consolidated somehow. There was 2 and a10 half million dollars in scheduled savings11 for payments to Verizon as a result of12 going to a VoIP system, which is a pretty13 big annualized savings, and I'm just14 wondering why we haven't issued an RFP15 that was first promised to this Council16 in 2008 for VoIP and how much you think17 it would save us.18
Councilman Green, I19 can't answer why we haven't issued one.20 I know we've been looking at this issue.21 We actually agree with you. Even in my22 testimony I said we've been looking at23 some managed services to do this. We24 don't have the perfect answer yet, but25 79 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 one of the things that we -- a strategy2 for this RFP that we're doing, we've3 hired a telecommunication expert, just a4 small amount, to help us sort of5 strategize on how to put it together. We6 want to request as part of the potential7 option is to have it as a managed8 service. It doesn't have to be internal.9 So as part of our whole looking at10 managed services, cloud computing type11 things, we are including this in there.12 So our goal is to have that as an option13 that someone could propose to us.14
Managed service.16 We're also building the e-mail system so17 that it will support unified messaging so18 that we could actually achieve once we19 get all the switches in place and the20 e-mail, that we could actually start to21 do VoIP as part of the integrated unit22 messaging system.23 So we really have three24 strategies. We're trying to see which25 80 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 one works out. You and I have had this2 discussion. We agree with you that it's3 a very valid thing to consider, and we4 are.5
So when will6 an RFP be issued that will include people7 to bid on managed services or VoIP?8
Anticipated9 schedule right now is the beginning of10 the summer, beginning of the fiscal year.11
Then I would22 say early summer is a bit unrealistic,23 wouldn't you?24
Well, we have the25 81 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 same concern, and part of -- that's why2 it's such a high priority for us. We've3 been talking to Law about what we expect4 to do. They've asked us for the first5 cut. I'm not yet satisfied that it's yet6 ready to even go. Law Department is7 swamped like the rest of us and I want to8 make sure that we give them something9 they can actually read versus more of an10 outline. That's why we actually enlisted11 the help of some outside help, to12 finalize sort of that strategy. But,13 yes, it's an aggressive schedule, without14 question.15
There's been16 talk of the WiFi network. Can someone17 estimate the value of the assets to the18 City of Philadelphia that we picked up in19 the acquisition of the WiFi network? In20 other words, how much is the equipment on21 the towers that we're leasing worth? How22 much...23
Councilman, I24 believe in the testimony last year when25 82 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 we did the acquisition that the estimated2 value, if you compared it to what it3 would cost to build that network, similar4 network, was in the $30 million range.5 That's why it seemed like a no-brainer as6 a benefit for us to acquire it at the7 price that we were being offered.8
That's9 right. And in terms of our ability to,10 as a public safety and otherwise City11 services closed-loop network, provide12 relatively fast Internet access and other13 things at remote sites, whether they be14 sanitation facilities or police districts15 or firehouses or things like that,16 without having to run a wired network,17 have we done an estimate of how much that18 can save us on an annualized basis?19
We have not20 compared it to the wired line cost of the21 point-to-point bandwidth. What we've22 compared it to is what we're paying for23 our wireless data services. I believe24 that the spend rate about that is in the25 83 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 $900,000 on an annual basis. The2 proposal at the time when we did the3 acquisition is that as we make the4 investments, we'll be able to reduce that5 number down dramatically and hopefully6 eliminate it because we'll be able to7 bring all that internally on our own8 network. And I believe as I testified in9 the previous Capital Budget is that we10 look at it as a converged network of both11 wireless and wire line so that we'll have12 that seamless integration between the13 user's ability to use the wireless14 network and the wire line network as one15 complete network.16
So when we17 talk about building out the City services18 network, the previous two CIOs had19 discussed using E-911 money to basically20 build out a WiMAX system that would be21 for City use citywide. Is that still the22 plan?23
I think the current24 plan, because most of the wireless25 84 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 network is not 9-1-1 eligible, PEMA has2 not determined that yet as an element --3
It is if4 it's a backup to police radio and part --5 it can be installed as such and it also6 can be installed as an interoperability7 platform with federal and state agencies8 operating in the City of Philadelphia9 because it's on a common standard, 5.2.10
So you're answering11 where I was going to go to, is that we do12 see that as you just explained, is that13 it is a replacement service for what14 we're currently using 9-1-1 dollars for,15 delivery of wireless services to police16 and emergency vehicles. So in that case,17 yes, there is a portion of it that we can18 use 9-1-1 dollars for.19 As far as going to a WiMAX20 network, I think the current network21 today on the existing platform is that22 vehicle. However, I think the advances23 in the future about where we're going24 with and where the nation is going with25 85 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 interoperability and the 700 megahertz2 spectrum more toward an LTE network is3 probably where we need to look it.4
I would5 completely disagree with that premise.6 LTE lines, we -- I don't know what that7 refers to. I assume you're not talking8 to the wired lines that come from --9
No. No, sir. What10 I'm referring to is both the FCC, the11 NTIA, the -- all I'm saying, they're12 talking about long-term evolution, which13 is comparable to the commercial where you14 hear today 4G, LTE network, wireless.15
And that's a big17 part of our strategy. We are absolutely18 looking at this as primarily for public19 safety. And what we also don't want is20 to go and build out everything today on a21 standard that looks like they're moving22 to something that's denser and higher23 speed.24
I'm25 86 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 completely technology agnostic, as long2 as we have high bandwidth, not the 8003 megahertz.4
As long as7 we have high bandwidth out into the field8 so that we can actually talk to people or9 send a lot of bandwidth to a fire control10 officer who wants to see what the11 infrastructure of a building looks like.12
Right. The 70013 megahertz -- the LTE, which is the14 standard that's being pushed by the15 federal government, is so you can do16 voice video and data high speed mobility17 out to the field.18
As well as density.20 And I think you're already familiar with21 the fact that we have been working with22 the feds to try to make sure that we are23 staying in sync with them.24
I know I've25 87 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 I mentioned this many times, but we can2 increase police presence on the street by3 20 to 24 percent. Every city that has4 implemented their own closed-loop network5 like this has had huge increase in6 productivity, because police persons7 don't have to go back to the stationhouse8 to file reports, to deal with paper at9 all. They can be in neighborhoods, file10 their reports from their cars, unless11 there's someone in the back that has to12 be taken in.13 So in terms of increasing14 police presence on the street, that's the15 equivalent of an additional thousand16 officers. So in terms of getting E-91117 approval and spend, I really think that18 we need to focus on trying to move that19 forward, and I want to do whatever I can20 to help you.21
You talked24 about prioritizing IT projects in the25 88 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 coming months and you noted -- you talked2 about cross departmental solutions, like3 an arrest-to-probation system, linking4 criminal justice system partners, et5 cetera. I serve on the Criminal Justice6 Advisory Board whose collaborative7 efforts really with the Administration,8 with the Courts and Prisons, et cetera,9 have reduced the City's prison population10 by close to 2,000 inmates, saving tens of11 millions of dollars, and technology is12 essential to achieving additional savings13 for the criminal justice system even.14 Too often we're relying on paper-based15 processes or siloed, non-integrated16 computer systems. When you are looking17 at prioritizing, are you looking at those18 two items also?19
So who is22 looking at the paper-based systems? Is23 it somebody in DOT or somebody else, or24 is that what we need the new person for?25 89 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
What we're doing2 right now is, like I said, we're working3 with the Managing Director and the Deputy4 Mayors to decide what the priorities are.5 They haven't been set, but I'm very6 comfortable that within the top five will7 be the network, within the top ten will8 be the cross application, things like the9 arrest to probation. We have systems in10 Prisons you know today that need to be11 replaced. We have the MDOs -- not the12 MDOs; the MDTs in the police systems that13 need to be replaced. So the Deputy Mayor14 for Public Safety had made this his15 number one initiative that he's striving16 for. So we're looking at how do we put17 together this team to actually put18 something in place that start to reduce19 the paperwork, as well as start to20 replace these old systems.21 We have systems in place today22 that do these functions, but they don't23 talk to each other. We met a month ago24 with the District Attorney's Office. So25 90 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 we are working right this minute to build2 this coalition to deliver this type of3 solution.4
But really5 we're not -- we're at the planning6 stages, not the studying stages.7
Okay. Could10 you tell me what the Gartner Group does11 for us? Last year they were $50,500.12 This year they're $202,000.13
Gartner Group is a14 research and advisory service. They have15 been providing us with research on16 staffing, on positions. They've looked17 at contracts that we had. Just recently18 we were looking at telephone equipment19 and we reached out to them, and they tell20 us whether or not prices that vendors are21 proposing are in the realm of national22 averages. They review contracts for us.23 So they're an internationally24 known research firm that has provided a25 91 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 great deal of advisement and review for2 us. They're indispensable.3
Okay. On4 Section 21, of the detail, it5 lists IT professional service contracts6 for the Water Department. There are six7 separate basis2 consultants -- I don't8 know what that means; you can hopefully9 tell me -- with contracts ranging from10 145,000 to over million, for a total of11 2.63 million. This looks like an area12 for potential consolidation of contracts.13 Can you discuss the services provided14 under each of these eight contracts and15 whether the City has analyzed contract16 consolidation.17
Sure. There are18 multiple contracts here. Sometimes it's19 for one individual, sometimes it's for20 multiple and sometimes it's for the21 company that actually owns the software.22 So when you see Prophecy of America, that23 is the actual software vendor for the24 basis2 software. They provide ongoing25 92 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 maintenance and support, patch releases,2 security releases, those types of things.3
In addition, when5 the system was put in several years6 back -- I don't know the exact date --7 there was a team of vendors that really8 drove the implementation of this system9 and has continued to provide the ongoing10 support. That's where you see11 Information Consultant Services of12 Delaware, Information Service Partners.13 It's sort of ironic that you14 ask that question, because literally last15 night we were going through scenarios16 where we could save money in the long17 term by bringing internal staff on. We18 have to provide them -- because basis2 is19 built on a platform that there are zero20 skills in the City for, we were laying21 out with Finance and Budget the training22 that we would need to send some of our23 folks to, the number of people we24 would -- we'd need to collapse a couple25 93 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 positions.2 So we're on the same page,3 Councilman Green. We believe that we are4 doing, and we believe that that's an area5 that we could save money. Maybe not next6 year, because there's an investment that7 has to be made, but certainly the year8 after.9
Well, the10 issue is, though, that this is the11 system -- is this the Water Revenue12 system essentially?13
Which is a15 system that costs a ton of money, but16 then ultimately the final solution was17 implemented for like 5 million bucks. I18 can't remember. Is that about right?19
So what21 you're telling me is for a $5 million22 implementation, we're spending 2.6323 million every year on maintenance. That24 seems --25 94 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
No. You're not5 spending that much money on maintenance.6 The original implementation stood up just7 the core functionality. That system has8 continued to evolve. I cannot tell you9 exact percentage. But the original10 implementation was just basic -- I don't11 want to confuse the word "basis" and12 "basic" -- was for to meet the basic13 requirements. That team has continued to14 add major new functionality to the15 system. That's what the 1 --16
Could you17 provide a list of the major new18 functionality that they've increased for19 the last year to the Chair --20
-- because I22 don't want to waste people's time on it,23 but I'm a little bit skeptical.24 I guess the other issue with25 95 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 respect to this basis2 system is how well2 will it integrate with a financial3 package and ERP that we put in place4 versus really taking an Oracle payment5 system, if that's what we're going to go6 with, or whoever we go with, and like7 sort of doing a re-implementation?8 Because this seems very expensive to9 maintain.10
So when the final11 analysis is done, I cannot tell you12 whether they decide to replace it with a13 different system or not. As to the14 question of how well it will interface,15 this actually happens to be Oracle E-biz16 suite based.17
Would you18 agree that this is extraordinarily19 expensive to maintain?20
I would agree that21 that was a lot of money that we're22 spending. However, because we are adding23 all this new functionality, I can't agree24 that it's excessive.25 96 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Well, one2 person's functionality is another3 person's wasteful spending. So we'll4 take a look at the list rather than go5 back and forth about it.6 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:7 Councilman?8
I12 know it's your birthday, but at the rate13 you're going, it will be your next year's14 birthday and you will be sitting there15 asking questions.16
I have a24 point of information.25 97 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
And it's a2 ten-point question.3 Councilman Rizzo had a point of4 information.5
Okay.8 So cloud computing, in my9 office we use cloud computing for a range10 of applications, including calendaring,11 document preparation. My entire campaign12 is run in the cloud. And I know you have13 experience with cloud computing from your14 time in DC. Some worked well, some15 didn't, although technology has changed.16
I'm18 wondering why we are considering buying19 our own hardware and having our own data20 center rather than simply leasing space21 in a data center even if we control the22 computers ourselves and the maintenance23 of them, if that's what we choose to do.24 In other words, there are plenty of data25 98 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 centers here in the City of Philadelphia,2 one at the Navy Yard. I think there's3 one 400 Spring Garden, something like4 that. Why we are building out our own5 data center rather than just great6 connectivity to existing data centers so7 that we don't have to heat and cool and8 do all the stuff, spend a lot of money on9 space when --10
Great question,11 Councilmember Green. We are actually12 looking at all three of those. The last13 part of what you described was a managed14 service, and I tell you we were looking15 at managed service from Amazon, from -- I16 forget the name of the company at the17 Navy Yard. We've been down and visited18 them. We've talked to them about what19 their pricings are. They got a great20 facility down there.21 Right at the moment we are22 trying to get control of -- you cannot23 put something out in the cloud that you24 don't even know what you have, and we25 99 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 have a lot of things, a lot of data2 centers, a lot of closets, a lot of under3 desks. So as we go through to get the4 economies of scale, we've built this5 server for them to address this6 particular question, and it makes sense7 for us to be virtualizing them as we get8 control of them. That does not mean that9 we won't use a managed service in the10 future to do them. One of the things11 we've looked at is, we're not going to12 build a data center 85 miles away from13 here. That is absolutely going to be a14 managed service, or a cloud. I mean,15 managed means we manage it. Cloud means16 they do everything.17 So we're looking at both of18 those. That's why we talk to people like19 NaviSite and Amazon and some of these20 others. We've even been looking at21 desktop applications.22 Yes, you're right, I've had23 experience with cloud computing for word24 processing, spreadsheets. We've actually25 100 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 been talking to not only the vendor that2 you're referring to, but our current3 vendor we're talking to about what their4 service offerings are for cloud, because5 we've been trying to assess whether or6 not every worker needs an installed7 version of a word processing system.8 So there's a lot going on9 behind the scenes. We can talk a lot10 more about it, but we agree with you. We11 think it's a fantastic idea, and we will12 probably end up with a mix and we are13 looking at that.14
Thank you.15 If you have plans for what you think the16 biggest bang for the buck is in terms of17 moving to managed services or cloud that18 we can do expeditiously rather than over19 time, if you could -- I won't take any20 more time. If you could provide that to21 the Chair. Thank you.22
Madam23 President, I just have a quick followup,24 point of information.25 101 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Thank you.4 I do understand that especially5 with technology, continuity of services,6 purchased services is sometimes required.7 How do we -- and I guess I can eventually8 ask Procurement. For telephone service9 we talked about, how do we -- do we ever10 have a competitive bid when -- we've had11 30 years maybe of telephone service with12 one company. How do we adhere to the law13 and not going out for competitive bids14 for other providers?15
To your question,20 Councilman, what we did is, we put out a21 request for information prior to putting22 out the actual RFP, and we did get23 responses from people who had suggested24 they were interested in responding to the25 102 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 RFP, but there was no way that we could2 do that as a sole source. So we put the3 RFP out on the bid. There was companies4 like AT&T was around that could have bid5 on that, Cavalier, Axel. There was a6 number of different companies that could,7 but chose not to.8
Was the bid9 so written that they couldn't compete10 because they don't have that product?11
No, Councilman. We12 had put out a request for proposal13 explaining what we currently have. We14 also said that we were looking for a15 provider that can provide equal to, if16 not better. So if they had a better17 solution than the Centrex service that we18 were offering, we were open to that,19 assuming that the level of service that20 we currently have we had to maintain,21 because we had to maintain at least the22 status quo, and similar to any other kind23 of bid, we put services -- we put things24 in there so that if they chose to replace25 103 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 it, we were looking for a transition2 plan, a way that we would move from the3 current platform to whatever that they4 wanted to offer us, assuming that they5 could maintain the level of service for6 the amount of lines and customers -- I7 mean internal departments that we8 support.9
And, Councilman12 Rizzo, just to follow up on that, we have13 the same concern you have. We have this14 conversation probably every month about15 why aren't we getting enough people,16 enough vendors to respond to the17 different RFPs. So we've been actually18 working with Law, Procurement,19 Contracting and the Ethics Board to try20 to "up" the number of people who respond21 to our RFPs across the board, because if22 we talk to someone and eight people said23 they're interested but only one person24 responds, our hands are somewhat tied.25 104 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
I think I2 understand.3 Madam President, I know it's4 only a point of information. I'll wait5 and come back to this issue, or I only6 have about two more minutes, if you want7 me to finish now or just wait my turn.8 It's up to you.9
Thank you.12 I'll be back at you.13 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:14 Councilwoman Miller has been waiting an15 awfully long time.16
Thank18 you.19 The Chair recognizes20 Councilwoman Miller.21
Thank22 you. Thank you, Madam President.23 I just have a couple questions24 as a followup to this video surveillance25 105 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 camera. Can we get an update on where we2 still need cameras? I never quite know3 whether my district has been completed,4 and mainly because of the wiring issues5 that was in the Northwest that prevented6 cameras from being placed, the optic7 wiring. I'm not real technical, so I'm8 just trying to figure out what these9 things are.10
Councilwoman, we11 can provide you the list. The list of12 the locations, as you recall, were13 determined by the Police Department. So14 we still have that same original list,15 but I can give you the list that are16 specific to those districts in your area,17 and I can give you the list of cameras18 that have already been placed in your19 area.20
And then24 we also had some with plastic bags. So25 106 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Councilman Rizzo's point is very well2 taken, particularly on Wayne Avenue. We3 don't need a camera there with a plastic4 bag. We need a camera there that works.5
And, Councilwoman,6 all the Wayne Avenues are done. There's7 no bag on any of the cameras on Wayne8 Avenue, any of the 14th or the 35th and9 39th.10
All11 right. Very good. So I'll look forward12 to getting that information. And I'd13 like to have an update on the placement14 of the 800 computers in the 73 sites15 across the City. Have you started that16 and where are they and what -- just give17 us an update, the status.18
Right. We know23 where they're going to go. The stage24 we're at now, we have just, I think,25 107 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 completed almost or all of the partners2 that are working with us to run the3 centers, and we're scheduled to start the4 first one -- when is the first center?5
Andrew, tell them8 who you are.9 And I'll let my Program10 Director for that program answer.11
I'm Andrew Buss.12 I'm the Director of Public Programs.13 I think we'll start14 implementing within about a month, and15 probably over the next three months16 there'll be a lot of lab implementations.17 As far as where they are, I'd be happy to18 provide the list to you.19
Well, I20 had a list that was specific to my21 district of where they were going to be22 placed, but in addition to that list of23 the community agencies, are they also24 going to be -- I believe that they're25 108 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 going to be placed in most rec centers,2 or am I wrong?3
Nineteen?6 Okay. So I would look forward to that7 information. If you're going to do it in8 a month, that's good, because we've been9 talking about this now, what, since10 September?11
Yes. We've been12 tied up mostly with contracting. So13 we're through that now. We should be14 good to go.15
Okay.16 All right. Thank you.17 One other question, Council18 President.19 I need to ask a question about20 City Council's website, and I don't know21 whether anyone else asked this or not,22 but why is it that we cannot put23 information on our website about what our24 specific offices are doing, you know,25 109 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 maybe today's hearing or a bill that2 we've sponsored that's going to be heard?3 Why are we so limited? We can't do4 anything. That's why we have to have5 Facebook or Twitter or some of those6 other social networking places, just to7 get information out to our constituents.8 Most of the other web -- if I9 go on the computer and look up an elected10 official, state or federal, things that11 they're doing, things they've done,12 upcoming events, bills, just all kinds of13 information are on those sites, and our14 site is so limited. We can't do15 anything.16
Councilmember,17 we've worked with your Chief18 Administrative Officer about requests19 that you all want to do on your website,20 and all we've asked is that you21 coordinate them through them. She will22 provide those types of things to us.23 There's the Council website on phila.gov24 and then you have some individual ones,25 110 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 but if you work with your Chief2 Administrative Officer, we're happy to3 try to address any of these issues.4
So you're5 saying that we can put information that I6 described on our website through our7 Chief Administrative Officer?8
Yes. I mean, I13 don't know everything you want, but, yes,14 you can update the content on those15 websites and stuff like that.16
All17 right. I'm going to go on there, because18 the last thing -- for example, if I just19 want a website -- if I want to add20 anything to Councilwoman Donna Reed21 Miller's website, you're saying I can do22 that?23
I'm saying, yes,24 you can add information to your website.25 111 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 We just need you to coordinate it through2 your Chief Accounting Officer.3
Yeah. I6 know exactly who you're talking about.7 All right.8
I'm happy to meet9 with you afterwards to talk about this in10 detail.11
Yeah,12 because I thought our website was kind of13 useless, and I just want to be able to14 put information on there. Now, I don't15 go on it all the time, but the last time16 I went on it, it had a picture of all17 Councilmembers and the phone number and18 the e-mail address and that was it.19 Maybe I'm missing something.20
The content itself,21 we do not -- DOT does not control the22 content. We make it happen, make it come23 up. But if you want additional content,24 I think the best thing to do is us to sit25 112 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 down and I'll try to make it happen this2 week. It's just understanding what it is3 you want, but, I mean, content is yours4 to control.5
Okay.6 All right. Good. So we can talk7 afterwards. Thank you.8 Thank you, Madam President.9
Thank10 you.11 The Chair recognizes Councilman12 Clarke.13
Real quick.18 First, can you get me a list of the sites19 that were selected for the20 stimulus-related activity for21 neighborhood sites? I don't have my list22 for my Council District, No. 5.23
Getting to25 113 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 the cameras, correct me if I'm wrong,2 right now we have three types of systems.3 One was the original square box with the4 blinking light that were essentially5 recording. Then we have a hardwired6 site, which was the second phase, and now7 we have hybrid cameras. Am I correct?8
In terms of11 the older models that were essentially12 recording the discs -- and I don't13 know -- who is responsible for pulling14 the disc and reviewing the content?15
The original16 models, the pods as we called them, the17 hard drives are pulled by the Police18 Department based upon activity in the19 area. And for evidentiary purposes, the20 police have to go up and actually take it21 out, and then they take it and they take22 it back to their audiovisual group and23 they look at the video.24
The Police25 114 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Department is not here, I'm assuming.2 When you say "activity," does that3 mean -- do they determine the level of4 activity? So does that mean if there's a5 the shooting, they pull the disc, or do6 they periodically pull the disc to see7 what actually is going on at that corner?8 Because we actually have a couple of9 locations where the drugs are sold under10 the camera, because there's a belief that11 nobody is, first of all, watching; second12 of all, they're never pulling the disc.13
The Police14 Department determines when they retrieve15 the disc, whether it's incident based or16 they just periodically do it as part of17 their policing of the area. But they18 determine that.19
So in terms20 of questionings relating to the21 functionality of the unit, that's you,22 but --23
-- use as25 115 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 it relates to public safety issues,2 there's probably no need for me to3 continue this line of questioning,4 because the Police Department pretty much5 handles that part of it?6
Yeah. One of the8 things we try to keep emphasizing, we're9 responsible for the technology, but the10 use of that information is -- it's a11 business user issue. So Police makes12 that call about why they want to pull the13 unit or not.14
Okay. I'll15 have to wait until that department comes16 up.17 And I know you spoke of this18 earlier. What's the timeline again on19 the EarthLink purchase and the ability to20 utilize the EarthLink purchase,21 infrastructure, for expanding the network22 on public safety, both camera and23 interaction between departments?24
So the acquisition25 116 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 has been completed. We are still in the2 phase of optimizing the network. We have3 to do a lot of things internally to make4 it a City internal network and make it a5 private network. Probably going to take6 us into the summer to get a lot of that7 stuff done. So that we have planned8 towards the summer to be able to have9 full control over the network so it's10 totally private and also to do a couple11 demonstration -- we have about four12 departments, Police being one of them,13 where we're going to actually do14 demonstration pilots to test out the15 network and test out some of the16 functionality. And then from there,17 we're going to continue our build-out,18 how we're going to actually change the19 network to make it work for the users.20
And the21 build-out will include purchase of22 additional cameras?23
Well, we're going24 to be kind of syncing those projects25 117 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 together, because we have a video2 surveillance project is running on a3 parallel track and then we're going to be4 working along with that to use the5 wireless network to deploy cameras as6 well.7
But they are two8 separate -- to be clear, they are two9 separate projects.10
I15 understand. But my question is relating16 to the video cameras, because we do not17 have them deployed across the City. Will18 this capability that we have purchased19 allow us to better utilize the cameras20 that we have by enhancing the hybrid or21 the wireless versions; therefore, not22 requiring as many cameras as we23 originally proposed, or are we going to24 get new cameras?25 118 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
I think we're going2 to have additional cameras. I think what3 it will allow us to do is speed up the4 deployment, because we'll be able to5 deploy it to locations where we don't6 have to run wire to to get them out into7 the neighborhoods a lot faster.8
Mobility is one of10 the things that is on that track of11 functionalities that we're trying to12 build for Police, so that we can take the13 video and pass it out to a car or --14 right now we are able to pass the video15 out to the police mobile incident16 response vehicles.17
Yeah. We can do20 that today, and we have done that on a21 couple of different --22
I believe the25 119 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Police has three, what they call those2 mobile incident response vehicles, the3 MIRVs. I believe we have three of them.4
All right.5 Thank you.6 Thank you, Madam President.7 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:8 You're welcome.9 The Chair recognizes10 Councilwoman Brown.11
I came in16 on the tail end of Councilman Goode's17 questions regarding MBE/WBE activity. I18 need to get some clarity regarding19 Verizon.20
So with22 the Verizon contract, just review for me23 what happened so that I don't misspeak24 here with regards to MBE/WBE activity.25 120 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Was there a stated goal in the contract?2
There was a stated3 goal in the RFP. I don't think we can4 answer the question whether it was5 actually in the contract. I think one of6 the things that we recognized from that7 contract and because of the performance8 issue that Councilman Goode raised is9 that in an RFP, we plan to take a lot of10 those services that were traditionally11 bundled in there that there was no12 subcontracting opportunities in to put13 them out and take them out of that14 contract so we can have the opportunity15 to have more contracting opportunities16 and subcontracting opportunities and not17 have it all bundled under one.18
Well, we had talked21 about trying to have the RFP out this22 summer, beginning of the new fiscal year.23
So we're not24 expecting to do it with the one that's in25 121 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 place today. It's the new one that we2 are trying to put out to look at3 different options.4
I clearly5 remember when there was a lot of6 discussion and, quite frankly, advocacy7 on behalf of Verizon, and then issues and8 concerns were raised about Verizon's9 commitment to MBE/WBE activity. So10 you're telling me that it was stated in11 the RFP, but we have no evidence of12 whether or not whatever they stated was13 honored?14
Okay. I21 do need to commend you on the aggressive22 outreach strategies I see stated in your23 testimony --24
-- to grow2 a robust pool of potential MBE/WBEs. In3 the short time I've been here, I've never4 seen this type of reach deep in the5 community to grow the pool of MBE/WBEs.6
So with8 that, this is what I wanted to ask. When9 you have these type of outreach10 activities, alert Councilmembers, because11 we too hear of MBE/WBEs who have an12 earnestness in wanting to participate and13 they are just out of loop of information14 for these type of opportunities. So15 inform us as well so that we can spread16 the information around.17
Okay. So19 enough about that.20 You said in response to21 Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller's22 questions that we can speak to our Chief23 Administrative Officer with regards to24 updating our City Council website,25 123 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 correct?2
Councilman4 Green spoke of cloud -- finish the5 sentence for me.6
I would8 ask that offices that are interested --9 better yet, I'll speak with Madam10 President about having a briefing with11 Councilmembers and staff so that we too12 can learn about that and see if we want13 to adopt that practice in our offices.14
Okay. On16 of your testimony, you state that17 your department has discovered some18 contracts that can potentially be19 consolidated. Which ones might that be?20
Well, there's a21 number of potential options. Like one of22 the ones that we have actually already23 consolidated because we thought it made24 sense was, there was a document25 124 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 management contract where we had eight2 separate ones and we're working to --3
I'm sorry; 186 separate ones, and we're working to7 consolidate as one. We've also had8 situations where we had a need to augment9 our technical staff with additional10 skills, and we found that sometimes the11 same vendor was selling their services to12 the City at different rates. So we put13 out a set of -- last year and then we're14 repeating it again this year, because we15 try to rebid it every year, where we are16 putting out an RFP to identify three to17 five staff aug companies that are used18 all over the City. So now no matter19 which department is using it, they'll get20 consistent rates and we can manage it21 centrally.22 We've also talked to people23 like Oracle for the databases we use24 about how we might have a consolidated25 125 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 contract, because we had separate2 department ones.3 So we were -- I cannot sit here4 and claim that we've had a great deal of5 success in terms of dollars, but we've6 had a great deal of success in7 identifying potential contracts and that8 we can going forward now, we understand9 the City's needs better that we can work10 out the best deal.11 It's not always feasible -- I12 personally came in here with a bias that13 I was going to save money immediately on14 our database vendors, because I had done15 it in DC, and it turns out actually we16 don't spend enough money on them to17 actually have any leverage to really save18 a whole lot. So it's all about doing the19 evaluation and deciding which ones are20 the best targets to go after and which21 ones aren't.22
Sure. And23 as you do that, it really is a24 double-edged sword, because the follow-up25 126 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 question becomes, And how does that2 impact MBE/WBE participation as well.3 When you move to one, then you're going4 from hopefully eight different MBE/WBEs5 in those instances where you have eight6 different contracts.7
Yeah. Well, I can8 give you an example. Last year we let9 out an RFP where we selected -- we had10 35 -- 31 responses last year -- we had11 over 30 responses last year. We ended up12 selecting three companies to provide the13 talent, two of which were OEO firms and14 one was -- I don't know what the title15 is, mainstream. And then even there, we16 looked beyond that. Two of them was17 actually Philadelphia based.18 So we do look actually very19 hard at those types of things to try to20 figure out what's best both for the OEO21 community and also what's best for22 Philadelphia. And we're trying.23 Certainly we're not perfect, but we're24 trying to make sure that we are spreading25 127 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 the wealth appropriately.2
Well, I3 need to say thank you. I don't know how4 long you've been here, but it's clear5 that you're trying. Because we have some6 department heads who have been here7 longer than ten years and every year8 still we are wrestling with why aren't9 you doing better. So your effort comes10 through.11
Thank you. And12 like I said in my testimony, my executive13 team took this very personal in terms of14 trying to raise these numbers, both in15 the OEO area as well as try to look for16 Philadelphia firms. So it isn't just me.17 It's the executive team is trying to do18 it.19
Well, and20 leadership sometimes goes from top down21 as well as bottom up.22
In your24 testimony, you state your office intends25 128 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 to convert the current e-mail system to a2 new, more modern one. How will the3 e-mail system work differently after this4 conversion, or will it?5
Well, there's a6 part of me that wants to say e-mail is7 e-mail, but that's really not true. The8 current system is eight years old, hasn't9 been updated in a long time. It has its10 own benefits and merits, don't get me11 wrong. But one of the things that we12 looked for was part of when we were13 looking at the e-mail system, we had to14 look for a lot of technical issues like15 its ability to support security, to16 support archiving. We also wanted17 something that made sense in terms of our18 desire to ultimately have a voice over19 IP, VoIP -- you've heard a lot about20 it -- solution and to have a unified21 messaging.22 If I were to take you on a trip23 to DC, you would see the system that we24 implemented there that now no matter25 129 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 where people walk around, their voice2 mail messages follow them to be3 converted.4 So we're trying to modernize5 the system. We've taken a lot of flack6 at the time that it takes to get it done,7 and we agree. We wish we would have been8 faster. But we've done -- doing it,9 we've discovered a lot of technical10 issues that had to be resolved and it's a11 little bit of shift in direction, but our12 hopes is that we will absolutely -- we13 believe that we can finish it this14 calendar year. That's what we're driving15 to.16
When did17 you start? And the only reason why I18 asked is because we've changed kind of19 sacrifice, and sometimes sacrifices20 needed time to get it done differently.21
So we started in25 130 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 2009, but as we were progressing through2 that, a lot of things were uncovered. I3 don't know if you were in here when I4 made the analogy that all my team keeps5 telling me to stop doing of like doing6 renovation. When we started to pull down7 the walls, we discovered there were8 things we just had to fix before we could9 continue.10
And that's one of12 the cases here. So we've actually13 implemented it in all of the departmental14 technologies at 1234 location. We've15 decided we would be our own guinea pigs,16 because this is a fundamental change in17 the way people get done on something18 that's a core to their business, to their19 lives.20
And you're glad we22 did it to ourselves first, because we23 found some definite quirks and issues24 that we've now been able to iron out, and25 131 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 now that makes us now ready to go forward2 with the rest of the City.3
So, again,4 I think that simply speaks to strong5 leadership. So I commend you in that6 way.7 Let me just make sure I've8 covered all my bases here.9 So let me just get back to10 Verizon, make sure I understood what I11 think I heard. You're going to report12 back to President Verna -- state again13 exactly what you're going to report to14 her so we know what to expect next time15 around.16
We're going to19 report back to you what was the stated20 OEO goals in the RFP and what were the21 stated goals in the contract and what has22 been their performance since the contract23 was awarded.24
Okay.25 132 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 I think that's it for me, Madam2 President.3 I thank you, gentlemen.4
Councilman11 Greenlee, I apologize. I misspoke when I12 said that BRT was maintaining their own.13 My team has corrected me that the split14 just happened, but it turns out now that15 we are the ones supporting BRT. So,16 again, I will meet with you to find out17 what issues you have about that.18 And it was also pointed out19 that when I talked about the procurement20 system, I made it sound like that what21 we're working on is the entire22 procurement system. The speed portion is23 just the front-end requisitioning, and I24 didn't want to give that erroneous25 133 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 impression. So my apologies for the2 misstatement.3
Thank4 you.5 Councilwoman Brown, are you6 finished?7
Yes, I did8 have one more, Madam President.9 On of your testimony you10 talk about the rollout of the Sidewalk11 Education and Enforcement Program. Just12 speak briefly to what that is.13
That is the14 sidewalk clean-up where you have to15 maintain the dumpsters and keep the area16 clean. Actually, the inspectors who go17 out now actually have a handheld device18 where they can scan -- they can write the19 tickets right there with the shop owner20 right there and give it to them right on21 the spot. It's been a great success.22 They don't have to come back to the23 office. It speaks to Councilman Green,24 Councilman Rizzo's whole desire for us to25 134 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 try to move the workforce closer to the2 actual work and to let them do this.3 This is a great example, a great success4 story of where we step one, baby step but5 step one, of where we're actually putting6 the workforce right where it needs to be.7
And so I'm11 curious to know, just out of curiosity,12 what type of education, if you will, or13 awareness was given to businessowners so14 that they know the hit is coming if you15 don't clean up your act?16
Yeah. Streets did17 an entire -- it's really a Streets18 Department initiative, and the Streets19 Department did a whole campaign, to the20 best of my knowledge, about this, a whole21 campaign telling people what was coming,22 what the situation -- I don't remember23 all the details, but I remember seeing it24 go out.25 135 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
For the2 record, just tell us a little bit about3 your background, how long you've been4 here, please.5
Sure. Again, my6 name is Thomas Jones. I've been with the7 City since November of 2009 where I came8 in under the previous CTO as the First9 Deputy and Chief Information Officer.10 Prior to that, I spent two years with the11 District of Columbia as their Deputy12 Chief Technology Officer under Vivek13 Kundra, who is now the U.S. CIO. Prior14 to that, I was across the water in15 Trenton at the State of New Jersey where16 I was the Assistant Chief for Application17 Development, and then -- I don't want to18 tell how old I am, so I'm not going to19 say how many years prior to that, but I20 started my career literally running these21 mainframe computers and just worked my22 way up through the ranks. So I guess23 I'll say it. I have over 30 years of24 experience in the field.25 136 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Thank8 you.9 The Chair recognizes Councilman10 Jones.11
Thank you.12 Very quickly, because I do know13 that you've been up here quite a long14 time --15
But I would20 compliment you as well on your digging21 deep, as Councilwoman Reynolds Brown22 says, about inclusion. That is important23 to each and every member of this Council,24 and we thank you for that.25 137 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 I ask this, though. On the2 hardware side, do you have a rough ball3 park estimate of what we spend on4 hardware annually or what we're5 anticipating to spend on -- when I say6 "hardware," not every -- I mean cameras7 but computers, mainframes, things like8 that.9
As my team here is13 looking up some numbers, I think you're14 probably thinking mostly in terms of your15 laptops, desktops versus --16
I'll take17 it -- yeah. No major systems, not18 wiring, but end-user kinds of equipment.19
So I know last year20 we replaced about 2,100 PCs. We spent21 about a million dollars last year on22 desktops.23
So what is24 the lifespan of equipment like that?25 138 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
So if you don't2 mind, if you'll allow me, I'd like to3 just talk about PCs, because once you get4 into the bigger machines --5
But at the6 end of the day, where I'm going, so that7 you can incorporate that, is how much8 leasing versus purchasing, do we build in9 for obsolescence and upgrades.10
So I'll have to11 come back with the number, but that's12 actually something that we've been13 discussing very heavily and we've14 investigated. Like, for example, out in15 Prisons, we lease their servers, and16 we've investigated -- we're trying to17 investigate whether or not leasing, in18 and of itself, is a better solution,19 because there are some leasing deals out20 here where automatic replacement. It's a21 juggling act that you have to do, because22 leasing is going to always be operating23 dollars in a given year. Capital you can24 at least spread over.25 139 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 I'm not qualified to make all2 those decisions. I pull in the Budget3 and Finance group to help me with those4 kinds of decisions, because that's not5 where my area of expertise lie. But we6 have investigated with all the major7 vendors and we're continuing to8 investigate it even more so, because9 since the City does not have a fantastic10 record of being able to replace this11 equipment in a timely manner, we would12 love for it to be like every four years,13 at a maximum. We have many pieces of14 equipment that are seven, eight years15 old.16 We wanted to see if we were to17 lease with an automatic replacement what18 would be the operating expense hit. I19 don't have that number for you yet, but20 we are working with Finance and Budget to21 try to come up with what makes sense to22 do, and we know in some isolated cases,23 we have done it and then others we24 haven't yet gotten there yet.25 140 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
When I look2 at Bill No. 100848 as an example, those3 kinds of critical decisions are the4 difference between millions of dollars5 worth of taxpayers' money that can be6 saved. In addition, functionality, just7 functionality, I mean it's reminiscent of8 the commercial that's out where the guy9 gets the new phone and he says, 4G? And10 they said, No, we already have 5G out and11 waiting on 5GA.12 I mean, that's a joke, but it13 is not, because as we try to keep up with14 technology, it advances on us, and the15 usefulness of a computer that can't16 download a particular software because17 it's not configured in a proper way just18 is frustrating. And one of the beautiful19 things about young people and our interns20 is that they look at our equipment and21 chuckle to themselves and say, Where did22 you get that, Grandpa? And so we need to23 build this obsolescence into our24 procurement activities, thus allowing us25 141 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 not to bear the burden of owning Fred2 Flintstone's first laptop.3
This is true. I4 agree with you, Councilman Jones, but5 there is one other factor that has to6 come into this, and, again, I do not7 pretend to be qualified in all the8 financial realms that my financial team9 looks into, but one of the things that10 people forget quite often is that if you11 purchase it today and regardless of12 whether you like the fact that it's six13 years old or not, you didn't make14 payments for five years. If you lease15 it, you must make -- that is a that-year16 impact on your Operating Budget. So17 that's just one factor that quite often18 is overlooked.19
But I want24 you to think about it, is my point. And25 142 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 you are better qualified and the team2 that you've gathered is better qualified3 to make that decision, but there are4 times when I know we're getting it wrong5 and we're -- the folk that brought it to6 us on the back of a truck are laughing7 because they know it's obsolete and we8 haven't caught up with the joke. So I9 need that --10
-- concrete12 analysis, and we look for you to make13 those good decisions on our behalf. And14 I know I've dealt with people at that15 table for over decades and I trust that16 judgment, but I want us always, always to17 sharpen our pencils in that computation,18 because a mistake, a slight mistake, gets19 us 10,000 eight track tape players and20 nobody within this decade knows what they21 are. And so we rely on you to take care22 of that.23
We agree, and we24 will definitely do that.25 143 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Thank4 you.5 The Chair recognizes Councilman6 Rizzo.7
Thank you,8 Madam Chair.9 I want to get back to some of10 these technologies that we've been living11 with for a lot of years. Realistically,12 I listened to what you said about sending13 out bids. Who -- and let's be candid14 here. Who could bid against the current15 product that we have that is offsite,16 that doesn't require any installation of17 switches in our buildings? All this18 equipment that makes this system that we19 have work is in the central office at the20 telephone company. So realistically, you21 could put that out that you said earlier,22 but there's no way in the world anybody23 could compete without a very, very24 extraordinary expenditure on installing a25 144 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 lot of telecommunications equipment in2 our facilities. Am I right?3
Councilman, I think4 there's the opinion that things have5 changed, and what the Verizon product6 that we currently have is a managed7 solution. So it's back to what Tommy was8 talking about before between the9 difference between a managed solution and10 a cloud-based solution. There's probably11 a way to do cloud-based solution to12 provide us the telephony that will be13 comparable to the solution we have today14 and that there are more like service15 providers, not the traditional telephony16 type, who treat this as an application on17 a network, not as an end product, that18 could offer us a very attractive19 opportunity to look at what technology20 can do, and I think that's to the point21 what Councilman Green was referring to22 earlier in his questioning.23
Well, my24 point is that we really have to get with25 145 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 it because of what Councilman Jones just2 said, some of the dinosaurs that we have.3 Some departments said if they had caller4 ID, as an example, how an anonymous call5 that comes into a police district, how6 helpful it would be for them to have that7 data and not have to go through the8 subpoena process to get information.9 I just can't imagine that we10 can't start a process where we start11 installing our own switches throughout12 the City, and at the end of the day, I13 think years from now with the upgrades14 that are available -- we talked about15 some of this obsolescence -- that some of16 the packages for upgrades 10, 12 years17 from now will be available without18 significant investments. I just can't19 imagine that for 30 years, or however20 many years it's been, that we have not21 changed our telephone communication22 system. I'm not saying that Verizon is23 not the answer to the problem. I'm just24 saying that it seems as though status quo25 146 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 is just the way it is, and I can't2 imagine that we haven't grown in all3 these years. And I know that you've just4 inherited the telephone end of the5 business, so you didn't have your hands6 on that, and I know the technology guys7 look at telephones differently than the8 telephone people used to years ago.9 So is there any plan, is there10 any money going to be budgeted to maybe11 move One Parkway or move another City12 facility away from these dinosaurs that13 we have?14
I'll try to answer15 the first part. I think, yes. To your16 point, we are looking at what we can do17 to kind of move us away from the current18 solution that we have. I think there's a19 couple things that have evolved like20 anything else. Technology has evolved21 and it's been talked about in the past,22 but I think we're at the point now where23 the technology has evolved that we24 actually do have the convergence of25 147 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 telephony and data communications as one2 solution as opposed to looked at them as3 two different types of platforms. And I4 think that's the effort that we have5 underway now in our plans, is to look at6 voice as a service, not as an end7 solution. And hopefully there's8 providers out there who look at the9 opportunity in that manner, and hopefully10 we craft it in that manner that they will11 see that even the investment of switching12 equipment that's necessary can be bundled13 into an overall solution that can use the14 infrastructure that's available and the15 technology to provide us the16 state-of-the-art. Just like you said,17 caller ID is assumed by most people to be18 what you automatically get, and today19 that's not the case. It's like you -- I20 think you've been asking since I've been21 around of having the light light on the22 phone when you got a message. Well, I23 think Tommy has talked about with unified24 communications, you don't have to worry25 148 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 about the light because you will have it2 all in your inbox, and hopefully we will3 get there in this new proposal that we're4 looking to put out.5
You have a6 good memory. See, I have my red light7 here.8
And I10 appreciate that, but I think I hear you11 talking about voice over IP. You can't12 have voice over IP with the13 infrastructure that we have now. It just14 wouldn't support it.15
But that's17 where we should be heading, to use one18 technology to do a lot of things. And19 our budget would significantly, am I20 right, decrease in the area of voice if21 in fact we used voice over IP? And I22 think we've been talking about it --23 what's the name of the company that we24 initially hooked up with to do the voice25 149 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 over IP project? You have the phone on2 the --3
Exactly. So6 that's five years ago we started that7 project, and I don't think it's any8 further along than it was five years ago.9
But, Councilman10 Rizzo, I'm glad you brought that up, just11 quickly, because you're right. Part of12 the reason that -- part of what we13 struggle with is the simple fact that our14 current infrastructure won't support some15 of these things. That's why some of the16 savings that were projected weren't17 realized, because the infrastructure18 wouldn't yet support it.19 But we are aggressively trying20 to make sure that that's not what we say21 next year when we're sitting at this22 table. We are looking at whether or not23 it's equipment, whether it's a managed24 service, whether it's a cloud offering.25 150 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 There are lots of offerings on the table2 where we should be able to take advantage3 of, and that's what the team is really4 focused on, besides the day-to-day5 firefighting of everything that happens.6 It's trying to get that done. And we are7 moving in the right direction. None of8 us are moving as fast as we want to, but9 we're moving there, and we're moving at a10 steady pace now that we see it as some of11 the underlying issues that we had to12 address, and you brought one up. So13 thank you.14
And I think15 I'm one member that appreciates all of16 your good work, because just maintaining17 what we have is a big responsibility, and18 I know that we will do better in the19 future and save some money at the end of20 the day.21
Thank25 151 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 you.2 Are there any other questions3 from members of the Committee?4 (No response.)5 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:6 Seeing no one, gentlemen, thank you very7 much. I think you're doing an8 outstanding job. Thank you.9
We11 will now stand in recess until 1:30, at12 which time the Procurement Department13 will testify. Thank you.14 (Short recess.)15
The16 Committee of the Whole is now back in17 session. I would ask the Procurement18 Commissioner to please approach the19 witness table.20 (Witnesses approached witness21 table.)22
Good23 afternoon. Thank you for your patience.24 Kindly identify yourself for the record25 152 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 and proceed with your testimony.2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT: My3 name is Mary Stitt, Deputy Commissioner4 of Procurement.5 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: My name6 is Hugh Ortman, Procurement Commissioner.7 Good afternoon, Council8 President --9
Good10 afternoon.11 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I'm12 sorry?13
15 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Good16 afternoon. 18 Good afternoon, Council19 President Verna and members of City20 Council. I am Hugh Ortman, Commissioner21 of the Procurement Department. 23 Stitt. 3 The Procurement Department is4 requesting a total appropriation for all5 funds of $4,370,602, of which 4,151,5746 is in the General Fund. The General Fund7 budget for Fiscal Year 2012 provides8 2,236,000 for Class 100 payroll expenses9 supporting 49 positions, 1,866,000 for10 Class 200 purchase of services and 49,00011 for Class 300 and 400 supplies and12 equipment. 2 The mission of the Procurement3 Department is to obtain quality goods,4 services and construction in a timely,5 cost-effective and professional manner6 through a competitive, fair and socially7 responsible process in accordance with8 the law. 11 To that end, with the12 Department's mission in mind, the13 Procurement Department has undertaken a14 number of initiatives during the current15 fiscal year. 14 The Department has consolidated15 its physical office space which has16 reduced its footprint by 25 percent. 13 We have continued to engage in14 an active role alongside the Office of15 Economic Opportunity to increase16 participation of minority, women and17 disabled-owned businesses in all City18 contracts. 2 OEO has launched a new3 initiative called Doing Business With the4 City, which is a series of workshops5 aimed at all local companies, with an6 extra focus on disadvantaged business7 enterprises. These sessions are held8 once a month and include presentations9 from Procurement, Finance, the Commerce10 Department, PIDC and others. 15 Procurement, along with other City16 departments, continues to attend various17 outreach programs on both a local and18 citywide basis. 22 Through attrition and the23 consolidation of various24 responsibilities, the Department has25 158 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 reduced budgeted positions from 65 to 512 over the past four years. 7 The Procurement Department is8 comprised of three divisions. 25 159 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 The Services, Supplies and2 Equipment Division issued 155 bids in3 FY10, resulting in 270 contract awards4 totalling $69,590,000. These awards,5 coupled with contract renewals, mean that6 at any given time there are approximately7 800 active Procurement contracts8 available for use. Also in FY10, 9619 small order purchases under $30,000 were10 also processed, totalling $6,277,000. 15 In FY10, our Capital Programs16 Unit processed 104 bids resulting in 10117 contracts worth $147,443. 2 The Department is also3 responsible to certify local business4 entities that may qualify for the five5 percent bid preference on contract6 awards. This effort is an incentive7 meant to encourage local vendors to get8 preference in bidding opportunities while9 continuing to have a base of operations10 within the City. 16 The Procurement Inspections17 Officer works closely with the using18 departments and the Water Testing Lab to19 ensure that all supplies and equipment20 meet the specifications as required in21 the awarded contracts. 2 The PIO also inspects the premises of3 applicants for local business entity bid4 preference to determine the validity of5 that location as a functioning local6 office, as required by the LBE7 regulations. Follow-up inspections are8 performed periodically to ensure that9 contractors continue to operate within10 the City limits. Violators are reported11 to the Inspector General for further12 investigation. 22 Madam President, this concludes23 my testimony. 3
Thank4 you, Commissioner.5 On of your testimony,6 you mention you will be implementing an7 electronic bid announcement system. Once8 this is accomplished, will you be able to9 reduce your advertising budget, and, if10 so, by how much?11 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN:12 Unfortunately the answer to that is no,13 because advertising is mandated by14 legislation. We're required to advertise15 two consecutive weeks in one of the top16 three circulating newspapers in the City.17 And our advertising budget itself is18 really only about $120,000. The rest of19 our budget, we pay for any mandated20 advertising throughout the City. We pay21 for that out of our budget.22
What23 does that cost?24 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Excuse25 163 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 me?2
What3 does that cost?4 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I'll tell5 you exactly. It's in the neighborhood of6 $2 million, but I've got to locate that.7
Yes,10 sir.11 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: We pay12 for mandated advertising in the13 department --14 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:15 Excuse me, Commissioner.16
I just want17 to back you up on something that you just18 said when it's appropriate.19
Very20 well.21 Commissioner, do you want to22 respond to my question.23 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Yes. The24 advertising for the City as well as for25 164 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Procurement comes to $1,744,000. That's2 projected for 2012. We also pay for3 election advertisings, things such as4 that, sheriff sales.5 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:6 Commissioner Rizzo -- I made you a7 Commissioner. Councilman Rizzo.8
Madam Chair,9 I believe what you said is a very10 important point that we have to follow up11 on. As we modernize our work practices,12 we need to modernize our legislation.13 And I think that you guys have14 a responsibility that if there's an15 obstacle in legislation, that you need to16 come to us and say, We need to change17 this legislation, so you can save the18 City money.19 So what I would hope you would20 do -- and I think the President broke the21 code there -- is that you need to22 modernize the legislation that requires23 you to spend money in areas that may not24 necessarily -- I'm not saying it's going25 165 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 to go away, sheriff sales, but I think2 you could start to reduce the advertising3 costs.4 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: And I5 agree with you completely and I'd love to6 reduce advertising costs. The only ones7 I'll be able to reduce would be the8 Procurement advertising-mandated costs,9 because most of the others -- excuse me.10 I'll back up. Our costs are mandated by11 City Charter.12
I was13 going to say --14 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Sheriff15 sales -- I'm sorry, Madam President.16
I was17 going to ask that question. Would we18 need a City Charter change?19 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Yes.20 That's just for the Procurement21 advertising.22
And23 we did one; did we not? Didn't we do a24 City Charter change?25 166 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
We did a2 Charter change.3 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN:4 Councilman Clarke introduced a bill a5 couple years ago.6
And?7 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: His bill8 was mainly introduced to in case the City9 newspapers were on strike. We would love10 to reword that to include our advertising11 so we wouldn't have to do that. We12 believe we can. We haven't gotten to13 that point yet.14
I am15 told that that City Charter change was16 done.17 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Yes.18 (Witness approached witness19 table.)20
There was --21 Rebecca Rynhart, Budget Director. There22 was a Charter change done. I think there23 would need to be, I think, an ordinance24 or a follow-up ordinance to actually25 167 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 change the requirements, the advertising2 requirements, to make it cheaper. So I3 think that if Council is amenable to4 that, that's something that we'd probably5 want to work with you on to be able to6 save money there.7
Well,8 I think the Administration and Council9 should be working on that, because we're10 talking about $1,749,000.11 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN:12 Unfortunately, Madam President, most of13 the advertising for campaigns for the14 vice-presidential -- whatever elections15 we're having are mandated by federal and16 state laws, and also sheriff sales.17
But18 isn't City advertising by local19 ordinances?20 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Some of21 it is; some of it isn't, correct. Most22 Commission meetings, I believe, are23 handled -- can be changed. But the ones24 covered by the federal and state statutes25 168 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 we can't change. And that is probably2 the bulk of our advertising, to be quite3 honest. It's all the elections every4 four years, the two elections. It all5 has to be advertised. The polling places6 have to be advertised, sheriff sales --7 there's a state law about that -- has to8 be advertised, at a minimum, the Legal9 Intelligencer, as well as other10 newspapers, what other top three11 circulation, I believe.12 So there's a lot more to it. I13 mean, I've been on a crusade to try and14 reduce advertising over the last couple15 years by only allowing departments to16 submit mandated advertising to us, but17 there's some they do on their own that's18 not our budget.19
So are you22 saying that the sheriff sales and23 whatever sales are mandatory by the24 state?25 169 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: The2 advertising, yes. It has to be in the3 legal newspaper in each location.4
So they5 have to be in the legal paper?6 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Say that7 one more time. I'm losing you here.8
I'm sorry.9 So you have to put those in the Legal10 Intelligencer?11 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Yes. And12 I believe, since I don't place them13 directly, I believe it's also one of the14 larger three circulated newspapers.15
So one of16 the larger three circulated papers and --17 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: And the18 Legal Intelligencer. And the state says19 it has to be done in every locale in the20 state.21
So at22 least one major paper that's circulated23 every day and the Legal Intelligencer.24 It doesn't have to be two major papers?25 170 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT: No.2 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Yes,3 okay.4
I6 think that's something that we and the7 Administration should be looking at.8 You're going to follow through on that,9 Dear?10
Thank12 you.13 Will the Administration be14 submitting an ordinance to City15 Council -- I was going to say, will we be16 getting an ordinance and when will we get17 it regarding the advertising procedures?18
I think that's19 something we need to talk about20 internally and then -- I don't have -- I21 don't know all the details of that. So22 we'll talk internally, but, again, if23 there's a way here to save some money,24 it's something we definitely want to do.25 171 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 So we'll be in touch with you shortly2 about it.3
Sure.6 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:7 Commissioner, on of your budget,8 you are requesting $80,000 for online9 auction of surplus vehicles and10 equipment. Why isn't this in the Fleet11 Management budget?12 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Because13 there's much more than just vehicles that14 are auctioned. It's an auction for15 anything we might have. The only thing16 we do separately is scrap metal. It17 could be regular -- whatever we have18 that --19
Give20 us an example, please.21 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Desks,22 huge desks, that people have no use of23 anymore. Unless we can get them to a24 department, we will do it ourselves.25 172 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:2 Councilman Jones, there's your desk.3 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Well, the4 auto auctions provided for 1,063,000.5 Non-auto was $31,956. So there are other6 things besides just vehicles that are7 auctioned. Aluminum poles was one from8 the Streets Department. I just don't9 recall the others because I don't do the10 actual auctions.11
Very12 well. On of your detail, you are13 requesting $150,000 for Chartwell14 Advisory Group. This represents a 3515 percent commission on all refunds16 received from the state. Can you explain17 what this is and how are refunds included18 in the revenue estimates?19 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: The20 refunds are -- when we do get the21 refunds, they go right to the General22 Fund. But what they consist of -- it's23 for public works contracts. Probably 9924 percent of it is public works contracts.25 173 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 The state -- the City -- I'm sorry. The2 sales tax, the state sales tax code is3 very, very complicated and it's4 impossible for vendors or contractors,5 since they're buying so much stuff at6 once, to say this is taxable, this is7 not. So they pay the tax. We in turn8 pay them the tax, because we don't know9 what it is either, it's so complicated.10 And then we go back to the state to get11 it.12 To give you an idea of how13 complicated -- and I believe I said this14 last year. A six-inch nail would15 probably be taxable. A two-inch nail16 would not be taxable. It's that crazy.17 And this is why this company actually18 exists and goes out and spends time,19 spend days going over contractors' books20 in order to come up -- they want their 3521 percent. Of course, we want our 6522 percent. But they go out and they really23 do look for it. I've had vendors call24 and say, Look, we have our own people to25 174 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 do this. I said, No, our guy wants to do2 it. And they'll find $20,000, $30,0003 even though these guys are saying there's4 no way this could happen.5
Very6 interesting.7 Where is that in the revenue8 estimates? What page would that be?9 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I don't10 know there's an estimate, because you11 never know from one year to the next12 what's going to happen. As a matter of13 fact, Harrisburg --14
We15 have to have something. I'm sure the16 revenue estimates are not zero.17 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Well,18 unless the state starts paying us some of19 the taxes they owe us, it may be zero,20 because they're not paying money right21 now. That's part because of their budget22 situation. We have a lot of money23 hanging up in Harrisburg that we paid in24 previous years that we're not able to25 175 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 collect it right now. Last check we got2 from Chartwell --3
How4 much does the state owe?5 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Excuse6 me?7
How8 much does the state owe us?9 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Hold on10 and I'll try to find out for you.11
I was just told12 that the money actually comes into the13 Grants Fund, because it was expended out14 of the Grants Fund, not into the General15 Fund, because it was expended out of the16 Grants.17
I18 thought 35 percent went to the Grants19 Fund.20
I think 3521 percent is the fee that we pay.22 Right, Hugh?23 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT:24 Yes.25 176 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
But4 isn't that the only part that would go to5 the Grants Fund?6
The 35 percent7 is their commission. So that would get8 paid to them. So that 35 percent goes to9 them, and then the rest of the -- oh,10 you're saying the equivalent of the 3511 percent would come to the Grants and the12 rest would come to the General Fund? I'd13 have to check on it. If you're14 interested, I can figure out where it15 would be in the General Fund, sure.16
I can do that.19 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: We did20 ask Chartwell for this information that21 you just requested last week, and we22 haven't gotten it yet. We do know that23 there is a minimum sitting in Harrisburg24 from invoicing --25 177 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:2 Excuse me, Commissioner.3 Mr. Donatucci, please don't4 leave the room. I want to see you. Your5 budget is coming up soon.6 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: There are7 refunds that have been hanging up in8 Harrisburg not approved yet that were9 submitted last year totalling somewhere10 in the vicinity of $200,000. But I'd11 have to talk -- we specifically asked12 that one question from Chartwell last13 week, and they have not gotten back to14 us, but I will get you that information15 and submit it to you.16
Thank17 you so much.18 The Chair recognizes Councilman19 Goode.20
Thank you,21 Madam President.22 Good afternoon, Mr. Ortman and23 Ms. Stitt.24 Mr. Ortman, the Procurement25 178 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Department handles all citywide2 contracts; is that correct?3 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: We4 process all citywide contracts, yes.5
And that's6 not reflected in your budget, but it's7 reflected in the budgets of all the8 departments?9 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: The10 expenditures are reflected in the budgets11 of all departments, yes.12
In terms of13 citywide contracts, can you tell me what14 is the largest contract you anticipate15 for Fiscal Year '12?16 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I have17 the contracts that are currently in18 place. For FY12, I'd have to run through19 each one individually to see which20 contracts are expiring in FY12 and then21 see what the value that we spent over the22 last four years.23
What is the24 largest contract for this fiscal year?25 179 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Currently2 in place would probably be -- well,3 there's actually a group of contracts for4 water chemicals, treatment of water. It5 probably totals 20-some million dollars,6 but that's a group of contracts because7 it's like eight or ten different vendors.8 Individual contract would probably be9 Elliot-Lewis at the Airport.10
You said the11 next one -- I'm sorry.12 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: That's13 going up -- that will be going out very14 shortly.15 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT:16 Elliot-Lewis at the Airport, the FMC,17 Facilities Maintenance Contracts.18
Okay. For19 both of those contracts, are they20 renewable contracts?21 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Yes, but22 the Elliot-Lewis one should be going out23 shortly for rebid.24
When was25 180 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 that last bid?2 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Last bid3 was in 2007.4
So how many5 years has the firm held that contract?6 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Well, it7 just got extended for another three8 months, but it's been four years.9
And that is10 not a certified disadvantaged business.11 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: No, it's12 not, but they do have 29 percent13 participation.14
I'm getting15 there.16 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Oh, I'm17 sorry.18
Does the19 firm subcontract with disadvantaged20 businesses?21 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Say it22 again, please.23
Does the24 firm subcontract with disadvantaged25 181 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 businesses?2 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Yes.3
What was the4 DBE participation goal in the last RFP?5 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I don't6 have -- the goal is actually best7 efforts, but they came up with 29 percent8 in their actual -- in their bid.9
Why was the10 goal best efforts?11 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I don't12 know the answer to that question. I13 would have to ask OEO and see what they14 set the goals for. I'm assuming -- well,15 I don't know the answer to that question.16
Okay.17 Briefly describe the contract18 requirements.19 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: For the20 Airport?21
For the22 Elliot-Lewis contract.23 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: It's24 huge. Well, the contract itself was25 182 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 about that thick. It's baggage claim,2 there's -- it's basically all the stuff3 on the outside of the tarmac as far as4 management, cleaning, repairing, window5 washing, whatever it may be.6
So you don't7 know what goals were in the -- you said8 the goals in the RFP were best efforts.9 Do you know what goals were actually in10 the contract? Were there goals in the11 actual contract?12 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN:13 Twenty-nine percent.14
That's what15 Elliot-Lewis came up with. That's what's16 in the actual contract?17 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT:18 Right.19 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I know20 that was in their original bid. What was21 actually in the negotiated contract, I22 don't know the answer to that. I'm going23 to assume it was the same, but I can't24 say it's for sure.25 183 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Has anyone2 beyond Elliot-Lewis identified what3 subcontract opportunities exist in the4 contract?5 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: For this6 contract, for the new one coming up?7
This8 particular contract.9 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Well,10 Elliot-Lewis is the one that would go out11 and find them. I'm not sure what you12 mean by that question. Once a contractor13 is in place, we wouldn't go out and14 solicit more people. That would be up to15 OEO and Elliot-Lewis.16
Let me17 reword it. Has anyone identified what18 subcontract opportunities are going to be19 in the RFP?20 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: In the21 new RFP?22
In the new23 RFP.24 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I haven't25 184 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 seen the new RFP.2
Who would3 know --4 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT:5 They would be similar to -- they're going6 to be similar to the previous contract,7 but of course --8
But the9 previous RFP said best-faith efforts.10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT: I11 don't know what the participation range12 is going to be.13
How big is14 this contract?15 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: It's 1316 million.17
And we don't21 know what the subcontract opportunity is22 going to be within the RFP?23 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: They are24 still -- hold on a second.25 185 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 (Witness approached witness2 table.)3
Good4 afternoon. My name is Angela5 Dowd-Burton. I'm Executive Director of6 the Office of Economic Opportunity.7 Councilman, without having the8 documents right in front of me, I can't9 be specific, but I will tell you in10 general what we will do is look at the11 subcontracting activity on the current12 contract and, at a minimum, indicate13 these are the options for any of the14 companies responding to the request for15 proposal to use these kinds of services16 to subcontract out for.17
Okay. I18 understand that, and as you're aware,19 every department that comes up, I'm going20 to ask them what their largest contract21 is.22
I'm going to24 ask the same series of questions and get25 186 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 down to what the actual contracting2 process is. And so what I'm going to3 need in terms of response, whether it's4 from Procurement or whether it's from5 OEO, is, particularly since there's a new6 RFP going out, what subcontract7 opportunities are identified within that8 RFP and what percentage of contract9 dollars does that represent. I'm10 actually not as concerned with or only11 concerned or solely concerned with the12 percentage of contract dollars. I'm more13 concerned about process in terms of how14 far we're digging in terms of15 subcontracting opportunities. And so I16 think the best way to go through this17 process with all departments is to look18 at the largest contract that they handle19 and actually see what their process20 actually is.21
So whoever23 is going to forward that information,24 will you please forward that information25 187 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 through the Chair.2 I'll move on in terms of3 contracts. In terms -- actually, still4 with the Elliot-Lewis contract. Is that5 firm currently in compliance with the6 City's living wage and benefits standard?7 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I don't8 know the answer to that question.9
Will the10 firm be required to be in compliance for11 Fiscal Year '12?12 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Yes.13
And who is14 directly responsible for monitoring wage15 and benefits standards for your16 department's contractors?17 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: That18 would be Labor Standards.19
Lastly,20 since we've gotten to this discussion of21 renewable contracts and being at22 different stages, of course there may be23 some efficiencies to having the same24 vendor in place for multiple years. In25 188 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 some cases, it may not be cost efficient,2 because you might get a lower bid at some3 point if you rebid it. I'm not going to4 get into that. I'm going to leave some5 of that up to you. What I will say is6 two things. One, we need to be concerned7 about cost efficiency and cost savings8 and whether these are actually9 competitive processes or not, but, more10 importantly, what I'm concerned about is11 as we move forward and take this12 seriously is, if these are renewable13 contracts and the firms do not meet their14 goals within the first year, I'm very15 concerned with what we're doing on a16 year-to-year basis. It appears to me17 that when someone thinks they're18 guaranteed a renewal, they believe that19 they have to perform to the same standard20 they performed in that current year, and21 they're probably not going to dig for22 more subcontracting opportunities. So if23 you don't get it right in your RFP and24 you don't get it right in the contract,25 189 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 there's probably not a chance you're2 going to get it right in the series of3 renewals. That's one mayoral term gone4 and that's another mayoral term gone, and5 that's why things don't change.6 And so the question is, of all7 the contracts that exist, citywide8 contracts and contracts by department, I9 would like to know the percentage of10 contracts that are renewable contracts,11 if you can forward that information12 through the Chair.13 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I will14 get that information, sir.15
Thank you18 very much.19 The Chair recognizes Councilman20 Jones.21
Thank you,22 Madam Chair.23 Good afternoon.24 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN:25 190 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Afternoon.2
In previous3 testimony, the Department of Technology4 talked about a quantitative analysis.5 That is something near and dear to my6 heart, which is called for in Resolution7 No. 100848. And probably the time you8 spend in Chambers you've heard about9 that. It is to take a look at and look10 at the effectiveness, efficiency and cost11 effectiveness of contracting out versus12 doing work internally.13 To what degree, similar to the14 Department of Technology, do other15 departments provide that analysis, and if16 they don't, in what cases does the17 Procurement Department?18 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I don't19 know for sure what the other departments20 do before they submit their requisitions21 to us. I can almost bet that OFM does22 it, but that will only be conjecture.23 And I don't know specifically what24 happens with the departments prior to25 191 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 them submitting their requisitions to us2 in order to get their new contract in3 place.4
Let me, as5 my colleague would say, rephrase it6 differently.7 On what occasion would you have8 reason to look at a contract and say9 that, I know that the cost of this pencil10 is way out of line and that we probably11 don't need to contract it out and we12 probably could do this internally? Do13 you have reason to look at a potential14 bid and say, Wait a minute, we could do15 it cheaper this way? Do you do that?16 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: We have.17 Mary has an excellent example with the18 switches.19 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT:20 Yes. There was a product called Juniper21 switches that the Division of Technology22 needed to purchase. They were hoping to23 purchase it actually off of a state24 contract, but we did have enough time to25 192 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 put it out for a City bid. Many times2 people assume that the state pricing is3 going to be better than the City pricing,4 but the City pricing does -- we do have5 very large purchasing power.6 So we moved it quickly, got it7 out there and got a lower price for the8 Juniper switches. Not only did we get a9 lower price from competitive vendors, but10 we got a lower price from the vendor who11 had the contract with the state.12 So there are times when we stop13 and we say, if we certainly have enough14 time -- we always prefer to put any kind15 of service or supplies out to bid before16 we piggyback off of another contract,17 even though piggybacking can be also cost18 savings.19 However, when it comes to your20 question specifically about can we do it21 in-house, we would have to rely on the22 expertise of the department. I can't say23 whether DOT can go fix video surveillance24 cameras. They would have to tell me that25 193 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 or if they need to contract it out.2
I would go3 to the field of construction. Supplies,4 service and equipment is one level of5 scrutiny of contracts that go out.6 Professional services might be another,7 but one that clearly pops out to me is8 construction. We have a number of9 recreation centers in my district, the10 difference between us looking at11 renovating or fixing a roof or fixing a12 restroom for one of our recreation13 centers.14 What type of system, check and15 balance system, could we put in place16 with this type of legislation to say have17 you looked at whether or not you have the18 available workforce internally? And we19 can go up to everything as big as snow20 removal and say, Can we get the Streets21 Department and the Water Department22 because of the types of vehicles that23 they have, if they are in our inventory,24 is it cheaper to kind of do it in-house25 194 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 versus -- and recognizing the expense of2 possible overtime versus contracting out.3 Is that type of system of analysis in4 place?5 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT:6 We've recently started talking with the7 Managing Director's Office about doing8 cost analysis. We would have to work9 with a working group more than likely,10 because, once again, we would need the11 Streets Department's expertise and12 whether or not they have the capacity to13 take care of snowplowing. If they do14 indeed have the equipment, do they have15 enough of the equipment, would overtime16 put us over what we could contract out,17 and then also always making sure that we18 look at benefits, because that would have19 to come into the analogy.20
And this is21 not an attempt to micro manage. I want22 to say that clearly, but it is in these23 tough economic times, in these budget24 times that when we're talking about25 195 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 whether or not brownouts are a preferred2 option to other things, we have to look3 at where we can find savings. And we do4 how much a year in Procurement?5 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT:6 Through the Procurement Department7 through construction and through -- I'm8 sorry; services, supplies and equipment,9 I believe it's around 400 million, around10 that. Professional services is much11 larger than what comes through the12 Procurement Department.13
So if you14 look at both of those together, are we at15 a billion?16 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT: I'm17 sorry?18
Are we at a19 billion dollars worth of purchasing in20 construction, supplies, services and21 equipment?22 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT: No,23 we're not at a billion, Councilman.24
And25 196 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 professional services?2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT:3 Professional services, I would say yes.4
I mean, all5 three together, would that be a billion6 dollars?7 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT:8 Definitely.9
So that's10 real money. We're talking about real11 money. And if we do this, I do not want12 for one second to slow down or be a boil13 on the butt of progress, but I do want us14 to kind of take a look at how we spend15 our money. Your example of whether or16 not it was cheaper to piggyback purchase17 off of the state fleet and to find and18 discover it was cheaper to go out on your19 own is the kind of analysis that can --20 those pennies and quarters in a jar21 eventually add up.22 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT: And23 we absolutely try to do that at every24 opportunity, once again, but we do have25 197 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 to partnership with the departments.2
We're giving3 you a heads-up on Resolution No. 100848.4 When we do have the hearings, we will5 rely on your collective expertise to tell6 us how we're doing it. What we're trying7 to do is nudge you along to make us start8 to do that instead of other things that9 we can do to save money, and maybe in10 those economies, we spare ourselves11 future layoffs, future closures and12 things like that. So this is a friendly13 request to attempt to do that.14 Under your local purchase --15 I'm going to ask a question that probably16 Councilman Goode would like to pursue,17 but he has a birthday today and he's18 getting older, so he may have forgotten19 this part of it.20
Oh, it's23 Bill's birthday. I'm sorry. Both Bills,24 that's right.25 198 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 But what I'd like to ask is, on2 contractors that violate, one of the big3 issues I believe under Goode's4 chairmanship of Commerce and Economic5 Development, the question was raised last6 year how many firms that were in7 non-compliance or found to be8 discriminatory were debarred. How many9 firms this year, a year later, have been10 debarred?11 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: None,12 that I'm aware of.13
So are --14 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: We would15 default it under, if requested to, by OEO16 and we are -- we have to investigate and17 that kind of thing. But to my knowledge,18 nobody has been debarred.19
So should20 this body believe that we've solved all21 of the inclusion problems and that there22 is no discrimination in the City of23 Philadelphia and, in particular, its24 procurement and all is well with the25 199 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 world?2 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I would3 say --4
Don't answer5 that.6 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: -- that7 there are vendors that are out there that8 aren't doing it correctly, but until it's9 brought to our attention, I wouldn't know10 about it.11
So, again,12 we have not debarred --13 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: No.14
-- any15 single contractor under this year's16 fiscal year?17 Thank you, Madam Chair.18
Thank you.19 The Chair recognizes Councilman20 Rizzo.21 COUNCILMAN RIZZO:22 Commissioner, how are you?23 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Good,24 sir. How are you?25 200 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Could you2 please review -- again, thanks for being3 open to upgrading the legislation,4 whether it's just legislation or Charter5 change to make your shop -- your proof of6 doing more with less, is that the7 expression? You're fewer people, but8 you're doing more. So that's a really9 impressive accomplishment.10 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Thank11 you.12
The question13 that I have is the procurement cities14 around the country's policies on buy15 America. Could you tell me the16 restrictions that you have in able to buy17 products that aren't made in the United18 States?19 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: The only20 restriction I'm aware of -- and I haven't21 looked at it for some time -- has to do22 with buying vehicles, and I think and you23 I discussed this in the past. It has to24 do with the Mexican-Canadian agreement.25 201 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 I forget what it's called.2
But I think6 we're buying now from Mexico.7 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I think8 we've worked that out, but I don't know9 of any other examples that I can think10 of.11
The example12 is that there's going to be a problem13 down the road, from what I understand.14 You know that the Police Department fleet15 used to have the Ford Crown Victoria, and16 now that car has gone away, but there'll17 be eventually a product that Ford will18 have to replace it, but it's not yet19 available. If that's the case, how did20 we buy these Priuses that are made in21 Japan?22 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I have to23 go back and look at that. I don't know.24
Well, we25 202 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 have. We very -- Health Department has2 got a bunch of them.3 My point is that Chevrolet is4 going to be building a new police car.5 It's called a Caprice. It was a name6 that they once had for that full-size7 car. I understand it's going to be made8 in Australia because they have a plant9 there that can accommodate that vehicle.10 From what I understand, based on your11 restrictions, you will not be able to buy12 the Chevy police car.13 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Like I14 said, I haven't had a look at that15 particular provision in three or four16 years. So I don't know the answer to17 that question at this point. I have to18 go and talk to Fleet and see if I can get19 you an answer.20
Well, they21 say it's not their issue. They say it's22 your issue.23 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: It's an24 illegal issue.25 203 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
My point2 being is, you can buy any product you3 want; the only thing you're telling me is4 you only have a restriction on vehicles?5 If you wanted to buy --6 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: That's7 the only restriction that I'm aware of,8 yes.9
Well, I'd be10 interested to know, A, how did you get11 around buying the vehicle, the Prius12 that's, from what I understand, made13 outside the United States of America and14 why we might have a problem in acquiring15 this new police car if we choose that we16 even want it. It obviously --17 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I'll get18 you an answer and submit it to the Chair.19
Thank you.23 The Chair recognizes24 Councilwoman Brown.25 204 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Thank you,2 Madam Chair.3 Good afternoon.4 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Good5 afternoon.6
I'd like7 to follow up on Councilman Jones'8 question regarding debarment. Can you9 speak to why that hasn't happened. Is it10 because the infrastructure or procedures11 are not in place yet to deal with those12 contractors who violate, or what? Help13 me understand.14 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN:15 Procurement can only take action after16 it's been informed of reason to take17 action by departments or Law Department18 and we would be directed to debar19 somebody. We would process the20 debarment. It's not totally up to us to21 debar somebody.22
Okay.23 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: It's a24 group effort and it has to be looked25 205 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 into. It's a serious matter, because you2 debar somebody, they can't be with the3 City for three years, and some companies,4 you can literally put them out of5 business, and we need to be aware that6 we're exactly right in what we're doing.7
So what8 departments are involved in that process9 or procedure?10 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I11 would -- at this point, we haven't12 debarred or looked into debarment for13 quite some time, so I can't give you the14 100 percent answer, but I would believe15 the Inspector General would be one of the16 first.17
Thank you,22 Madam Chair.23 I won't mention the firm's24 name. There is a construction company25 206 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 that there have been charges brought2 against. Is that not correct?3 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Say that4 again one more time.5
There is a6 construction company that have charges7 brought against it; is that not correct?8 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I believe9 there is, but I don't think they've been10 debarred yet.11
They have12 not been debarred yet, but they are in13 the process of debarment.14 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Okay.15
And if they16 are not in the process of debarment, then17 we will start our own legislative process18 toward debarment.19 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: But it's20 out of our --21
Someone here22 could answer that question. I don't have23 to mention the firm's name.24 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I know25 207 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 who you're talking about.2
Either they3 are or they are not.4 (Witness approached witness5 table.)6
Brian7 Abernathy, Chief of Staff to the Managing8 Director.9 To the best of my knowledge,10 yes, it is in process.11
Thank you.15 Thank you, Madam Chair.16 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT: And17 they have been disqualified.18
So I also19 would like to push the needle a bit20 further around Councilman Goode's21 questions regarding those who have22 contracts, those who answer the questions23 where we want to know what the MBE/WBE24 goals are and then what actually25 208 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 happened. I am not comfortable with it2 being forwarded to the Chair. That's a3 good thing. What we're going to ask the4 head of OEO, whoever is responsible for5 that, is that for every single remaining6 department coming before us, that that is7 a separate, stand-alone part of the8 testimony so that we see it at the time9 you're at the table, for the record.10 Okay?11 Another request I did make was12 that we also see as part of the testimony13 for every department the composition,14 breakdown of departments in terms of15 staff, staffing, what staff looks like at16 the managerial level or the leadership17 level or the mid leadership level and18 then what things look like at the staff19 level. Because, again, the prevailing20 question is, are those in leadership, are21 those who are in the ranks of leadership,22 does it look like Philadelphia.23 We know that Civil Service has24 a role in this, but we're also learning25 209 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 that there are exempt positions. And2 when there's an opportunity for leaders3 and heads of department to make decisions4 around exempt positions, people of color5 and women are not getting a fair6 opportunity. So the only way we can get7 a handle on that is to see it in writing8 on paper.9 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Yes.10 We'll get it for you.11
Okay.12 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT:13 Councilwoman, you do see in our testimony14 the breakdown between --15
Could you16 identify yourself for the record.17 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT:18 Mary Stitt, Deputy Procurement19 Commissioner.20 You do see in our testimony21 that we have a breakdown of how many22 minority groups are represented and how23 many women are represented in our24 department, and we will, of course,25 210 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 forward to you what the leadership looks2 like.3
Last8 year's -- let me get this right. Speak9 to, if you will, any connect, any10 relationship with the various chambers.11 We have the Greater Philadelphia Chamber,12 but other chambers where you can share13 opportunities between government and14 those chambers so that the membership of15 those organizations hear and hear what16 the pending opportunities are.17 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Well, as18 mentioned in our testimony, we have been19 going different places around the City.20 As far as the Philadelphia Chamber of21 Commerce, the actual meetings that OEO22 has arranged for doing business with the23 City that we attend as well are actually24 held in the Chamber, and they issue25 211 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 information to their people to come to2 these meetings and learn a little more3 about what our process is like, what4 professional services are all about and5 so on. So that's an ongoing process.6
And what7 do you believe the yield has been, the8 yield, outcome?9 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: It's very10 difficult to say, because I wouldn't11 know. I mean, if somebody is there and12 they get a contract a year later, I'm13 really not going to remember that I met14 them there. But the turnout has been15 excellent of the ones we've had so far.16 They've asked a lot of good questions and17 they're interested.18
Okay. I19 would offer as a recommendation something20 that Councilman Jones cares a lot about.21 It's important to do the work, but it is22 also helpful to know what the outcome and23 yield is on the back end, because then,24 of course, that drives whether or not the25 212 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 effort is indeed worth it. So that would2 be helpful too going forward.3 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Yes,4 ma'am.5
You stated6 in last year's testimony that, quote,7 "Our vendor list is quite extensive." Is8 the OEO-registered vendors -- has that9 list expanded at all?10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT:11 Yes. The OEO registration has expanded,12 I was just told by their Executive13 Director.14
In what15 ways?16 (Witness approached witness17 table.)18
The OEO19 registry has been increased from 1,33420 companies in January of 2010 to 1,70821 companies as of last Friday. And so it's22 about a 28 to 30 percent increase. And23 the goal is to continue to grow the24 registry in the areas where we do not25 213 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 have adequate number of companies to2 increase participation for certain3 commodities and services.4 So if you look at the numbers5 in terms of the breakdown, 45 percent of6 that registry are ethnic-based companies.7 Another 55 percent are women-based8 companies. So it's growing on both9 categories.10
So what11 structural changes have you made in your12 department to grow that number?13
Well, there14 have been a number of initiatives. We15 are working very closely with the Women's16 Business Enterprise National Council, who17 certifies firms, as well as the Minority18 Supplier Development Council. We're19 working closely with the PAUCP, SEPTA,20 the department within the state that21 certifies businesses. So the goal is to22 increase the level of communication23 across those organizations and to attract24 the companies that they are certifying.25 214 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 One of the other things that2 we're working on is a few and no list.3
Few and no.6 There are lists of about 60 commodities7 that we buy across the City and we have8 few or no minorities or women in our9 registry that provide those products or10 services. So we've spent the last 1211 months communicating that list to various12 organizations and institutions to say, We13 need to have a sourcing strategy for14 attracting minorities and women to15 provide us these products and services.16 We also have Econsult doing an17 exploratory across the country to say do18 they exist anywhere, so that we know when19 we are looking at opportunities for new20 markets business development for21 minorities and women, here is an area22 that we have not been successful and that23 they may want to consider.24
That25 215 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 speaks to a very interesting editorial2 that was written by Marc Morial,3 President of the National Urban League,4 within the last month wherein he talked5 about how the opportunity for women and6 minority-owned businesses is7 entrepreneurship. So if you have a need8 here, then there may be an opportunity9 for government or Department of Commerce10 to encourage entrepreneurship to then11 address these needs that have been12 identified.13
So I share15 that, because I just read a synopsis of16 that report wherein entrepreneurship is17 the way to put a lot of our citizens to18 work when the jobs are just not there.19 So could you circulate that to20 the Chair so that members of Council can21 see that few or no list?22
Oh,23 absolutely. And it's also on our24 website, but we'll be happy to share it25 216 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 with you.2
Okay.3 Last year also someone talked about how4 in each department there is an identified5 procurement official who handles the duty6 and the functions of OEO to make sure the7 type of concerns raised by Councilmembers8 are happening systemically. So what's9 the status of that?10
Last May, the11 Mayor approved OEO officers for each12 operating department. So we have13 officers that we actually meet with on a14 monthly basis to talk about how OEO15 operates, where the opportunities are16 within the operating departments in terms17 of their contracts that will be coming on18 the horizon. The goal is to plan ahead19 so that we not only anticipate what the20 needs are but are identifying companies21 that can respond to those needs when the22 RFP or the bid is put on the street.23 So in addition to the program24 that he mentioned doing business with the25 217 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 City, Let's Get Started -- that's the2 full name -- we are providing information3 and opportunity to those companies. We4 have departments, in addition to5 Procurement, we have License and6 Inspection, we have Finance, we're7 talking about -- and we have PIDC for the8 Emerging Loan Program. So the goal is to9 build an infrastructure for these10 companies to not only provide them with11 information, but support to enter into12 doing business with the City.13
Thank you.14 On the enforcement end, I'm still15 learning, let me just say for the record.16 Who is responsible for ensuring that17 what's put on paper is then reviewed to18 see and make sure what's put on paper is19 actually real? Where does that function20 lie?21
Well, it lies22 within the operating departments who are23 living with those companies on a daily24 basis and it also lies with OEO to follow25 218 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 up with those companies to make sure that2 there are subcontracts in place, to make3 sure subcontractors are being paid when4 the primes get paid. And so we are5 working on a system that will be6 implemented shortly. It was mentioned by7 the Department of Technology. That8 system will enable us to once we enter9 contracts, we have participation that we10 can --11
Exactly. So14 it will not only report participation, it15 will report payments, and then16 subcontractors will also be able to17 confirm they have been paid.18
So do you19 suspect that we'll be at a different20 place a year from now when we're talking21 budget and departments as relates to this22 issue?23
Okay.25 219 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Thank you.2 I'm done. Thank you very much.3 Thank you, Madam Chair.4
Thank you.5 Let me just ask one question6 before we call on the next Councilmember.7 On of your testimony you talk8 about the Department is responsible to9 certify local business entities that may10 qualify for the five percent bid11 preference on contract awards. How12 successful is this? Are we gaining more13 local businesses in terms of14 participation because of this preference?15 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Well, the16 participation and LB are two separate17 things.18
Well, they19 qualify for five percent bid preference20 on contracts.21 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: But it22 has nothing to do with -- there's less23 awards in the last couple of years than24 in previous years when the program first25 220 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 got started. I can't tell you that's2 because of less bids, which there have3 been because the budget hasn't been that4 great. But we have 153 companies that5 have submitted for the preference and6 have received a preference. As I7 mentioned in the bid, a few of them are8 not qualified anymore. So it's been a9 semi-successful program, yes.10
Okay.11 Thank you very much.12 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: You're13 welcome.14
You took the17 words right out of my mouth, Madam Chair.18 I would like to know how many19 bids went out and were successfully20 awarded with the preference of local21 bidding.22 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: We do23 submit that to the Chair every January,24 but I do believe I have that here.25 221 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
I know it's2 not January, but --3 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I know.4 I got it right here.5 Let's see here. This is done6 by calendar year, not fiscal year.7
That's fine.8 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: For9 calendar year of 2010, there were three10 bids awarded because of the preference,11 which --12
Out of how13 many? Three out of?14 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: These are15 all awarded to public works contracts or16 public works bids. There were 104 bids17 that went out, I believe.18
So three out19 of 104, approximately?20 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: For21 public works, yes. These three were all22 public works. There were none in SS&E.23
Okay. That24 says that we have to figure more creative25 222 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 ways to get the local economy stimulated2 through your activities without violating3 any state procurement laws, and I'll say4 that two times, without violating any5 state procurement laws.6 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT:7 Could I add to that, Councilman?8
Yes.9 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT:10 That doesn't mean -- if three out of the11 104 were awarded the bid based off of the12 preference doesn't mean that -- some of13 that 104 could have definitely been local14 businesses that were the lowest15 responsive and responsible bidder and16 didn't need the preference. They were17 low anyway.18
So as you19 provide the information, I'd like to take20 a look at that.21 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT:22 Okay.23
How many of24 your contracts are requirements25 223 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 contracts? And explain to the body and2 those listening what a requirements3 contract is.4 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: SS&E5 contracts and -- by virtue of what public6 works contracts are, they're7 requirements, is they continually are8 ongoing. SS&E, I would say 95 percent9 are probably requirements contracts. We10 even do vehicles on requirements11 contracts now.12
So is that13 up from maybe a couple years ago?14 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN:15 Percentage-wise or numbers-wise?16
I'm saying17 the number of contracts that fall --18 before, just for everyone's, you could19 buy a pencil and every department could20 buy that pencil. Some bright Procurement21 person decided that we're going to buy22 pencils bulk and you draw down on the23 requirements as needed. That makes sense24 in a lot of categories, but what it also25 224 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 does is makes it more available for as2 Staples to bid on, because they can buy3 in such bulk that a small business can't4 be competitive with the price. And I'm5 okay. I at least understand that,6 because we as a city can't afford not to7 do it that way.8 The question I guess I have is,9 how many of those contracts do we have?10 How often are they renewed and to give11 new businesses an opportunity to at least12 take a shot at it? And so when I asked13 how many of those and are they up over14 the years, is the question I would have15 for you guys.16 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Well,17 most of the requirements contracts we18 have out there have one contract year19 initially and three options to renew for20 the next three years, and that's totally21 at the option of the City. It's not22 automatic. There are many times that we23 haven't renewed them for one reason or24 another.25 225 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
But could2 you give us a list of all of them so3 that -- I mean --4 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Oh, yeah.5
And I'm6 going to give you a perfect example of7 where it works out well. You buy our8 fleets' gasoline, correct?9 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Correct.10
And that's11 done on a requirements contract, right?12 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Right.13 That's only a one-year contract, though.14
But at the15 beginning of the year, gas was $2 a16 gallon. It is now close to -- so whoever17 did that contract is a genius and18 deserves the Philadelphia award, because19 we're not paying for that increase and20 spike in gas, correct?21 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: He just22 retired on the DROP program. He's gone.23 But he's responsible for it. Bob Fox has24 done a great job with that over the25 226 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 years.2
Over the3 years we've been able to hold down4 fluctuations in price through5 requirements contracts. So I'm not6 against them. I just want to know where7 we have them, because that does have8 maybe an unintended impact of limiting9 the number of local firms or small10 businesses that can participate in that11 bulk.12 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Well, you13 mention small businesses. There were14 900-and-some SOPs that went out, small15 order purchases, in FY10, and those16 specifically go to small businesses and17 vendors that are registered with OEO.18 They are most all of them -- I shouldn't19 say all. I would say, again, 95 percent20 are -- opposite of requirements is 9521 percent are firm limited. So those are22 continually going out each year.23
So would you24 give us a breakdown, an estimate on how25 227 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 many dollars go into that segment of2 contractors?3 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Which4 segment do you want, the first one or5 this one?6
Small7 business purchases.8 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Yes. We9 have total dollars, over $6 million.10
Thank you14 very much.15 Are there any other questions?16 (No response.)17
Thank you18 very much.19 COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Thank20 you.21 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STITT:22 Thank you.23 (Witnesses approached witness24 table.)25 228 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
We're2 going to now hear from the Managing3 Director's Office.4 Good afternoon.5
Would you7 like to proceed. Identify yourself and8 proceed with your testimony.9
Good afternoon,10 Chair Councilwoman Tasco and members of11 Council. I am Rich Negrin, Managing12 Director and Deputy Mayor for13 Administration and Coordination of the14 City of Philadelphia. It is my pleasure15 to be here this afternoon. 19 Over the course of Fiscal Year20 '11, the Managing Director's Office, MDO,21 has undertaken a series of initiatives,22 very important ones; for example,23 PhillyRising, a program which partners24 with City departments and other agencies25 229 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 to prioritize, plan and deliver services2 required to address chronic crime and3 quality of life issues. We have also4 worked very diligently over the last year5 to improve the service of our 3-1-1 call6 center, which has virtually a 93 percent7 positive rate. We've expanded and8 internally relaunched what we call9 PhillyStat, our performance management10 accountability program, to measure and11 improve citywide operations. We've12 expanded our great language access13 program, Global Philadelphia, which aims14 to make government readily accessible for15 Philadelphians who have limited English16 proficiency. 3 And I want to add that I4 appreciate Thomas Conway wearing a suit5 today. 7 Little unusual. 9 Before I continue with my10 testimony, I want to take a brief moment11 to discuss my special commitment to12 diversity. 23 To show the MDO's commitment to minority,24 women and disabled businesses in City25 231 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 contracting, during Fiscal Year '11 my2 office has achieved a 23 percent3 participation rate, a significant4 improvement over our Fiscal Year '105 numbers. The MDO's Fiscal Year '126 participation goal is 25 percent. 10 I've heard questions about11 staffing. Almost 60 percent of the12 current MDO's workforce comes from a13 minority background, the majority of14 which, 46 percent, identified themselves15 as African American, nine percent16 Hispanic, of which I am one. To show the17 MDO's commitment to women, 60 percent of18 our active workforce is composed of19 women. And to ensure meaningful access20 to City services for all Philadelphians,21 including immigrants and individuals with22 limited English proficiency, Global23 Philadelphia is committed to24 strengthening the relationship between25 232 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 diverse linguistic communities and the2 City government by ensuring that English3 language proficiency is not a barrier in4 accessing essential City services. 10 The MDO Fiscal Year '12 budget11 has been reorganized to include two12 additional divisions. The first, as I13 mentioned, is Animal Control, which will14 be transferred from the Department of15 Health to the MDO. 4 million for this year. 56 million is allocated for the Youth7 Violence Reduction Partnership; 500,0008 is allocated to fund personnel costs9 associated specifically with PhillyRising10 to make sure that we can expand the11 program across the City. More than12 200,000 is allocated to fund personnel13 costs under the Mayor's Office of14 Sustainability for three critical staff15 members, who are currently funded through16 a federal grant set to expire in June of17 this year. 4 million of24 this amount. 6 million is derived3 from the General Fund. The4 Administration Division provides policy5 direction, reviews efficiencies and6 ensures accountability for the delivery7 of City services. 21 This is a new model for neighborhood22 service delivery in Philadelphia. Under23 the leadership of Deputy Managing24 Director John Farrell, PhillyRising works25 235 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 to partner with residents in developing2 strategies to help them combat chronic3 crime and quality of life issues that4 continue to plague our neighborhoods. 16 We are also seeing an impact on crime;17 most notably, an almost 16 percent18 decrease in serious crime between19 February and December of 2010 from the20 previous year.
These successes are21 achieved by better coordination rather22 than the expenditures of significant23 resources. 24 I also want to add that just25 236 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 yesterday I attended the Citizen2 Engagement Academy, which was the first3 graduation we had for ten members of that4 community, who actually took a six-week5 program to learn all about City services,6 what they can and cannot do. It was a7 pleasure to see Mayor Nutter there8 actually offering them their9 certificates. They were so proud. 13 The investment we have14 requested for PhillyRising will allow us15 to expand the program over the course of16 Fiscal Year '12. The vast majority of17 our request, $547,000, will fund the18 salaries of seven staff members who19 handle day-to-day operations for targeted20 neighborhoods. Six coordinators will21 each be assigned to one of the six police22 divisions. These coordinators will be23 responsible for bringing PhillyRising to24 communities within their borders, and25 237 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 they will reach troubled neighborhoods2 across the City. 7 During the past fiscal year,8 the MDO, under the program administration9 of Assistant Managing Director Catherine10 Lamb, has redesigned internally the11 PhillyStat model to better improve12 departmental performance and provide13 accountability. The new PhillyStat model14 focuses on achieving outcomes that matter15 to residents while simultaneously16 focusing on improving the internal17 efficiency of City government. 22 Global Philadelphia, a program23 overseen by Assistant Managing Director24 David Torres, is the City's language25 238 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 access program. Global Philadelphia's2 primary focus, as I mentioned earlier, is3 the building of a sustainable4 infrastructure within and across5 departments to ensure meaningful access6 to City services for all Philadelphians,7 including individuals with limited8 English proficiency. 20 The MDO's Administrative21 Division also includes the coordination22 of special events overseen by Deputy23 Managing Director Jazelle Jones. 7 Philly 3-1-1, under the8 leadership of Deputy Managing Director9 Rosetta Lue, is the City's non-emergency10 call center and walk-in facility. 912 million of the MDO's budget. 19 It is now available to all City20 employees. The Academy provides a21 variety of training to City employees; in22 particular, those who have regular23 interaction with the public, to improve24 their customer service skills. Since its25 240 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 launch, over 400 City employees have2 attended various courses. The feedback3 on this program has been incredibly4 positive. And those 400 employees have5 been trained just within this past6 calendar year. So it's making a lot of7 headway. My goal would be that every8 department within the Administrative9 group who has interaction with the public10 goes through that training so that when11 people call the City of Philadelphia,12 they have a positive customer service13 experience. 15 Philly 3-1-1 has taken almost 316 million calls -- I believe in April we17 expect to hit 3 million -- since its18 inception in December of 2008, providing19 all callers with an easy way to access20 and navigate City-related services. At21 the start of Fiscal Year '11, 3-1-1 was22 nationally designated as a citizen23 engaged community by the Public24 Technology Institute, something we're25 241 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 very proud of. Citizen engagement during2 the year included training close to 2003 Philadelphia residents to become 3-1-14 neighborhood liaisons. 8 million of the13 budget. This is a direct transfer of14 General Fund monies from the Department15 of Health to the MDO. 18 And I notice that Councilman Kelly is19 here.
23 With the help of Deputy24 Managing Director Bridget Greenwald and25 242 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Finance Director Rob Dubow, the MDO, in2 collaboration with various City3 departments, have developed a4 comprehensive strategy to address the5 City's vacant property situation. To6 date, we have engaged many internal and7 external stakeholders in the vacant8 property conversation, including9 Council's Committee on Housing,10 Neighborhood Development and the11 Homeless, focusing our efforts on the12 disposition of City-owned property, the13 maintenance of vacant land, the14 acquisition and tax policies surrounding15 vacant property, and establishing an16 accurate vacant property inventory. 7 million24 is derived from the Grant Fund. 4 million is requested9 for Fiscal Year '12. 12 Under the supervision of Deputy Managing13 Director Thomas Conway, the CLIP program14 continues to improve the appearance and15 image of the City of Philadelphia. 20 The Health and Opportunity21 Division constitutes a small portion of22 our budget. The proposed allocation for23 this division is $540,000, all of which24 is derived from the General Fund. 3 The Mayor's Office of4 Sustainability constitutes the majority5 of the Economic Development Division of6 the MDO budget. 18 million. 3 million is10 generated from Grants Revenue. The11 General Fund reflects an increase of12 218,000 in Class 100, which is directly13 related to the transition of three14 critical positions from a Department of15 Energy grant to the General Fund. 2
Thank you3 very much.4 On of your budget5 detail, it reflects that you are6 requesting an increase of 23 full-time7 General Fund employees. Can you tell us8 how many of these positions and their9 value that you wish to transition from10 Grants Revenue Fund and the service11 impact if they were not funded?12
Good afternoon,13 Madam President. Dave Wilson, First14 Deputy Managing Director.15 From that 23, there are roughly16 five positions that are Grant funded that17 will need to be transferred over.18
Could you19 give us a breakdown? Did you give us a20 breakdown in your testimony of those21 positions?22
I do not believe23 there was a breakdown in the testimony,24 but I'd be more than happy to give you a25 246 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 breakdown for that.2
Thank you6 very much.7 The number of positions being8 transferred to your office from other9 agencies -- what are the number of10 positions being transferred to your11 office from other City agencies and their12 value?13
The number of14 positions transferred would be five, and15 that total value would be, I believe16 it's, $165,000.17
What are18 the number of the new positions and their19 value that you are requesting?20
The number of new21 positions that we're requesting would be22 six.23
Those are the five24 PhillyRising positions and the one that25 247 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 we anticipate, Animal Control position.2
Five from3 the Grants, five from other departments4 and six new ones?5
The remaining9 positions would be positions that we've10 already brought on based on an increase11 to our target budget. So these are12 positions that are currently part of the13 MDO, but we were able to bring them on14 because of the increase in our target15 budget.16
I think it24 would be better to kind of sort of lay it25 248 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 out as to really what you're doing, the2 new people, what's being transferred to3 your department would be better.4
Thank you.6 On of your detail,7 you're requesting $50,000 in new funding8 for public service areas. How will these9 funds be used, and what are public10 service areas?11
The PSA is public12 service area, which was the platform in13 which PhillyRising was built on. So what14 you see there is a request that I believe15 is subsumed under the PhillyRising16 request. So the PSA was where the idea17 for PhillyRising came from. So that's18 what that refers to. The PSA is19 police -- it's a police service area. I20 don't like the name. I think we all know21 that PSA is a public service22 announcement. So we've grown the23 PhillyRising program out of the PSA24 piece, but that's what that's25 249 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 referencing. It's referencing what2 PhillyRising used to be before we3 expanded it and pulled in all these other4 agencies.5
On of your testimony, you mention your7 Health and Opportunity Division. Can you8 tell us what services they provide and9 the benefit to the City?10
That entire11 funding -- Brian Abernathy, Chief of12 Staff to the Managing Director.13 That funding funds five14 positions, two Deputy Mayors, their Chief15 of Staff and two Administrative16 Assistants.17
Mike24 DiBerardinis is also funded in that line25 250 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 item.2
Deputy Mayor5 Schwarz's Chief of Staff, Susan Kretsge,6 is also funded through that, and there7 are two Administrative Assistants.8
No. This is12 General Fund money.13 (Witness approached witness14 table.)15
Don Schwarz. I16 am Deputy Mayor for Health and17 Opportunity.18 So this includes my salary, the19 salary for my Chief of Staff, who20 coordinates a fair amount of the work21 that we do across departments and new22 initiatives that are initiated through23 our office and analyses that are done.24 One person is my secretary, my assistant,25 251 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 and the other is a vacant position at the2 moment for an Administrative Assistant or3 a secretary.4
Okay.5 Thank you. Thank you very much.6 The Chair recognizes Councilman7 Rizzo.8
Thank you.9 Thank you, Madam Chair.10 Managing Director, I was11 pleased to hear -- but I don't think I12 got all of it -- your interest and13 concern about language barrier, and that14 leads me to something that I think is15 very important, and it's the hundreds of16 e-mails that maybe you've received about17 the Police Advisory Commission. I know18 I've received them. You do control the19 budget for that Commission. So what I'm20 asking is that it seems reasonable with21 the language barrier that many people22 have, especially in such a sensitive area23 of potentially a complaint against a City24 employee, that you want very clear25 252 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 communication. I'm not suggesting that2 everyone that approaches the Police3 Advisory Commission can't communicate in4 English, but they maybe can't communicate5 to the degree with the fine detail. And6 I think it's a reasonable request that a7 Hispanic or Latino, population growing8 the way it has, that truly to have a9 Spanish-speaking interpreter,10 investigator is very reasonable and I11 think you would want, based on what I12 heard about 20 minutes ago, to have in13 place there, because the last thing you14 would want to have is a lack of15 communication between the non-speaking --16 you understand where I'm coming from17 here?18
What can we20 do? Because if someone asked me does the21 Police Advisory Commission have an22 interpreter or investigator that can23 speak Spanish, I'd say absolutely.24 They'd have to. So my appeal to you is25 253 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 to make that happen.2
Yes. That's the3 short answer. The longer answer is,4 we're going to go back to doing it the5 way it was done. We had an individual in6 that position. What happened was, they7 left. We're committed to making sure8 that there's someone down there who is --9 the question is whether it's going to be10 someone who is full time or not. I don't11 know if that's the commitment we're12 willing to make. I think we have to13 figure out exactly what the best approach14 is, but we're committed and we share your15 concern. And I especially on a personal16 level understand the need to have someone17 there who can speak the language of the18 individuals in the community who are19 looking to bring legitimate complaints20 against Police. So we will make sure --21 I know Everett is here if you have more22 questions, but I know he is deeply23 committed to making sure that those24 complaints get heard and that they're25 254 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 addressed and that there's a great2 mechanism in place to make sure that3 nothing falls through the cracks because4 of language.5 When I received a number of6 these e-mails last week -- and7 Councilwoman Quinones was the first, I8 think, to bring this to my attention -- I9 sent this to David Torres in my office,10 who, as I said earlier, is in charge of11 Global Philadelphia. And David has been12 working with Everett's office and his13 individuals to make sure that we can14 fulfill those needs, even if there's a15 temporary solution around linking some of16 the stuff we do with Global Philadelphia17 with what's going on at the Police18 Advisory Board to make sure that we have19 a short-term fix and then do what we can20 to make sure there's a long-term fix by21 having someone who is there and22 available.23
And I don't24 think just the interpreter part is the25 255 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 entire request. I think the2 investigative skill is important, because3 as a result of the complaint, there needs4 to be, I'm sure, interaction with a lot5 of other people that may need someone6 that has the ability to speak Spanish7 but, equally important, has the ability8 to conduct an investigation. A lot of9 people could interpret, but having the10 skill set to be the investigator is also11 very important.12
I think that's13 exactly right, and I think it goes beyond14 the investigatory piece. I think there's15 a cultural awareness and a sensitivity16 around how people interact with the17 Police. The Hispanic or Latino18 experience with the Police is very19 different than the African American20 experience with Police. There needs to21 be a very profound understanding of what22 that is and what those differences are in23 order to better serve the community.24
If you could25 256 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 get back to us when you and the Deputy2 Mayor get this resolved, because I think,3 honestly, I think it's an obligation to4 do this the right way.5
And I thank7 you for being both open to resolving this8 problem.9
Thank you.13 The Chair recognizes Councilman14 Jones.15
You're20 welcome.21 First of all, let me say that22 PhillyRise wasn't just in Darrell23 Clarke's district. I happen to know on a24 Saturday morning, see a cast of25 257 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 characters out in my district providing2 services at a grassroots level, which we3 haven't seen for quite some time in the4 community, and that area was very5 grateful to see government responding,6 not in a top-down manner but in a7 bottoms-up manner. So we're thankful for8 that and the participation and follow-ups9 from everything from alley cleanings and10 Tommy Conway and others that have been a11 part of my district for quite some time.12 So North Philly doesn't have all of the13 fun. West Philly has some of the fun as14 well.15 I would like to ask16 Mr. Abernathy -- and it's always good to17 see you back in Council Chambers. You18 were aggressively working on a property19 acquisition/disposition process last year20 and I wanted to know where we were with21 that by way of City-owned properties,22 vacant properties, and have we gotten our23 arms around that process.24
Thank you,25 258 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Councilman. As you know, that process2 involved a number of different3 departments, and it's a large project.4 We're continuing to work through some of5 the outstanding issues, continuing to6 work through a number of details that we7 certainly will be bringing back to this8 Council through Councilwoman Blackwell's9 committee going forward, hopefully within10 the next month or so.11
I mean,12 that's very important. As we start to13 look to the light at the end of the14 tunnel by way of this recession, we start15 to look at, God forbid, construction. So16 site acquisition and site control become17 very important. So we'd like to probably18 take a look at that. As the market eases19 and banks start to lend, businesses start20 to grow, we want to be able to put forth21 some of those properties in a way that,22 A, gives us revenues. I mean, if I look23 at Market Street as an example of24 wonderful construction with the El after,25 259 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 what, seven to ten years of construction2 we have -- we are experiencing 40 percent3 abandonment under that between 59th and4 63rd. So that property5 acquisition/disposition process becomes6 critical to us. We don't want to wait7 until the economy gets better and then we8 don't know how to move properties for9 developers. So I anxiously anticipate10 you wrestling that bear, and I know11 you're very capable of doing that.12 One of the things that I want13 to -- you talked about the new PhillyStat14 and how that's working. One of the15 things that I talked about beyond16 PhillyStat, which might have been a part17 of -- well, it was a part of a18 procurement model that we used to attract19 over 2 billion, billion with a B, dollars20 in opportunities from the stimulus21 package, and I wanted to encourage us to22 continue that model to look at federal,23 state opportunities and to kind of pull24 together the eclectic number of talents25 260 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 that were sitting around that table to2 try to get more revenues, more programs,3 more dollars into our caucus and wanted4 to know if indeed -- I know the stimulus5 package is sunsetting, but opportunities6 under another name are just as good, and7 as we start to count quarters in the8 couch, we really need to stay focused as9 to what is available that we can take10 advantage of here in Philadelphia from11 Washington, DC and in the state. I12 wanted to know if you're going to pursue13 that model.14
As part of the new15 model -- and I can let Cat Lamb kind of16 brief you on the two different models.17 Part of what we call PhillyStat Ops is18 one of the things I'm asking my19 operational teams to do. It's the first20 time that we're doing what I would21 call -- it's something I've used in the22 private sector. It's more of a corporate23 ops model that is very different than24 what we've done in the past. So as part25 261 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 of this model, one of the -- we're2 looking at the departments in five broad3 areas. Their operations, so key metrics4 on their performance on their operations.5 Their finances. When we look at their6 finances, we're looking with how they're7 tracking to their budget, what are their8 revenue opportunities, what are their9 grant opportunities. We're talking about10 including in that process how they're11 doing with their Recovery fund spending,12 because you need to spend it in order to13 utilize all of that. Maari Porter and I14 have had some conversations about that.15 She's our Recovery Officer.16 We're looking at HR as another17 broad area. We're looking at Technology18 as another broad area. And then a big19 focus for me has been customer service.20 So we're creating very similar to how we21 have integrity officers in different22 departments that have helped move the23 needle around integrity, we're creating24 customer service officers who look at25 262 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 what are the key metrics on how we're2 touching people's lives through response3 times, through how the call center is4 operating.5 So your suggestion I think is a6 great one, and I think it's something7 that we can incorporate into the8 financial piece of what we're doing so9 that we're not just doing key metrics10 around four or five kind of key11 operational things, we're looking at the12 entire department and getting a snapshot13 in time of how they are at least on a14 quarterly basis so that we understand the15 general health of the department across16 the spectrum of those five broad areas.17
Catherine Lamb,18 Director of PhillyStat.19 Councilman, I just want to say20 thank you for bringing up ARRA, because21 it's been a great pleasure of mine that22 actually the redesign of PhillyStat has23 been a close collaboration between our24 office and the Department of Finance. In25 263 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 particular, we've been working very2 closely with Maari Porter, who is the3 Recovery Officer, as well Anna Wallace,4 who is the Deputy Budget Director. So5 we've definitely heard lessons that she6 learned and that the people in the7 Recovery Steering Committee learned8 during that and is something that we are9 working into this model.10
I just think11 that we did so well, did not have any12 major problems with the federal13 government, which is amazing considering14 the number of sources that those RFPs15 were coming from, and we kind of moved it16 through the machine of bureaucracy in a17 way that we actually had outcomes. Now,18 could we have done it better? Could we19 have put the cart before the horse?20 Could we have found ways to match21 employment? Yeah, we could have done it22 better, but we did it better than many23 municipalities. Many municipalities left24 money on the table because they were25 264 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 unable to quickly respond to the2 opportunities that the federal government3 offered in a way that was compliant with4 their rules and regulations, of which5 there were many.6 So I'm just saying to you --7 I'm just saying that we should, to coin a8 phrase, that we should really take what9 works and build upon it. And you can10 call it stimulus, you can call it11 Recovery, you can call it whatever, but12 call it revenues to the City of13 Philadelphia. And if we maintain that14 model and maintain, more importantly, the15 context that we established at the16 federal levels to think of Philadelphia17 first when they're coming out with a beta18 testing of a new type of program or some19 relief -- and there will be fewer, but20 there will be many still, and I want us21 just to be on the cutting edge of the22 receipt of those kinds of dollars,23 working with our Philadelphia delegation24 at the congressional level.25 265 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
I wanted to add to3 that briefly. Your point about4 incorporating it into PhillyStat is5 really important, because it's less about6 the system and the process than it is7 about asking the question and paying8 attention to it.9 One of the things that I think10 we need to do as we have these11 conversations and we can do that -- it12 starts in PhillyStat, but it needs to13 permeate through the departments -- is --14 I ask my folks when we talk about new15 initiatives and programs, I ask the16 question every time, are there grant17 funds available. And I don't know if we18 all do that. And that needs to become a19 part of what I think I'm hearing from20 you, a part of our DNA.21 I know Rosetta Lue from 3-1-122 has a Knight Foundation grant that she's23 in consideration for right now that if we24 win will be a substantial revenue25 266 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 enhancement to what she's trying to2 accomplish in 3-1-1, and it's really3 around citizen engagement.4 Those opportunities are out5 there. We need to be able to identify6 them. She identified that on her own7 because she had that initiative. I'm not8 sure that we're all speaking the same9 language around that, but we certainly10 are.11
Well, I can12 tell you, I sat on the other side of this13 table in the mike where you're sitting,14 and every year as soon as just like15 Christmas holidays, the Mayor of whatever16 Administration was asking for three to17 five percent in way of cuts. I mean, it18 was just a part of our Administrations19 being. And what we were able to do is20 three to five percent in new RFPs and21 initiatives. We would go out and find22 that, so -- and it kind of balanced out.23 So new money replaced old money that we24 were asked to give back or cut or cut25 267 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 back on this, and those things actually2 helped us keep pace with some of the3 right sizing, if you would, of4 government. We were able to look at new5 opportunities that we were qualified for.6 And we weren't going out and doing7 chicken dinner sales. I don't mean for8 us to do that, but if we're looking at --9 for example, Councilman Kenney put forth10 a bill about different types of11 impervious and pervious surfaces that12 could be rubber sidewalks, which I think13 is just futuristic and fascinating, but14 is there a companion grant, RFP, to15 utilize recyclable materials somewhere16 that we could take advantage of to kind17 of do the beta testing for. If we think18 like that, we can kind of augment a19 number of budgets around the City by an20 RFP committee that comes in a judicious21 way and tries to make it better for the22 department and work with the department23 to add resources and program delivery in24 the meantime.25 268 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 So I'm just -- as long as2 you're thinking that way, I'm glad to3 hear that.4 Thank you, Madam Chair.5
Thank you,9 Madam Chair.10 Good afternoon, Mr. Negrin.11
I'm asking13 the same list of questions to each14 department. The first is, what's the15 largest contract that you will award in16 Fiscal Year '12?17
Sure. Well, for18 us it's a little different in the19 Managing Director's Office. There are20 contracts that we administer that we21 don't have direct programmatic control22 over that we're sort of the back office23 for. So in terms of contracts that we --24
I'm actually25 269 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 more concerned over which contract --2 what's the largest contract that you3 control the RFP process for.4
And that's where I5 was going to go. Of the largest contract6 that we control and manage and control7 the RFP process, that would be on the8 non-profit side, it's the Health9 Federation of Philadelphia, just under a10 million dollars, and that's part of11 Global Philadelphia. And they are a12 state-certified MBE. They are currently13 in the process of becoming a local MBE.14 And then on the profit side, it's15 TransPerfect Translations, is the name of16 the company, just under 200,000, and that17 again is part of Global Philadelphia.18
Let's take19 the Health Federation contract. Is that20 a renewable contract?21
And when was24 it last bid?25 270 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
So how many3 years have they held the contract? Just4 for one year?5
The requirements10 are for the Health Federation to provide11 language access services, including12 telephonic, in-person interpretation,13 proofreading and other items related to14 interpretation services for LEP15 populations.16
And so it's17 in the process of being certified18 locally, but has state certification?19
And in the21 RFP that was issued, was there a22 participation goal that was set?23
I believe there24 was, Councilman. I'm not certain that it25 271 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 was, but I can -- if I could get back to2 you on that and let you know.3
If you could4 just submit that through the Chair.5 Actually, this is a very interesting6 question now. Because a DBE was actually7 selected, what goal is actually put in8 the contract?9
Again, I'm not10 certain at this point. I can11 double-check that for you and get it back12 to the Chair.13
If you can14 submit that through the Chair as well.15 Thank you.16 If it had not been given to a17 DBE as a prime contract, what subcontract18 opportunities would you have imagined19 within the contract?20
What22 subcontract would you imagine would have23 been in the contract?24
I'm going to ask25 272 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 David Torres, who heads up the program,2 to speak to that.3
David Torres,4 Assistant Managing Director in the5 Managing Director's Office.6 Could you repeat the question7 one more time?8
The question9 is, if the contract had not been awarded10 to a disadvantaged business, what11 subcontracting opportunities would you12 imagine to be within the contract?13
I'm actually going14 to backtrack a bit, because there was a15 little bit of a misspeak. The Health16 Federation is a non-profit that is the17 prime on this contract. There are two18 subcontractors. One of them is Language19 Services Associates. Language Service20 Associates is an OEO-certified21 minority-owned business -- or, rather,22 woman-owned business. So that's where23 the ranges are coming in on that24 contract. And I can actually say that25 273 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 there are 26 percent -- rather, that's2 what's marked in ASIS, in our contracting3 system, is 26 percent of the contract.4
The RFP, I don't7 actually know the ranges. So I would8 have to -- there were ranges set and we9 can provide them to you after today.10
I should mention12 that TransPerfect Translation, that13 contract is actually where they're14 working with OEO to be registered right15 now as we speak.16
Interesting17 enough, as you provide me some more18 information, I'd still like an answer to19 the question, which is what actual20 opportunities are identified within the21 contract, not just who received it and22 for what percentage of contract dollars,23 but in terms of the work that's being24 done. And where I'm going with this is25 274 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 simply that if it's work that had to be2 done by disadvantaged business or had to3 be a majority of work had to be4 subcontract to a disadvantaged business,5 then of course the goal would be set very6 high. So I'm just wondering what portion7 of the work was available for8 disadvantaged business. And if it's 1009 percent, then that begs the question of10 should there have been -- what should the11 goal have been set in the RFP and within12 the contract. So the question first is13 just to identify the actual14 subcontracting opportunities that exist.15
Well, I'd have to16 get back to you on specific to17 disabled-owned businesses. There were18 ranges set on minority and women-owned19 businesses.20
I was using21 a disadvantaged business as a combination22 of minority, woman and disabled.23
I'd have to -- I24 can provide you the numbers after today.25 275 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
I'm actually2 looking for to describe the contract3 requirements and what within the contract4 requirements exist in terms of5 subcontracting opportunities.6
It was spoken to7 for the contract for -- well, the RFP8 really was for five services -9 over-the-phone interpretation, in-person10 interpretation, document translation and11 training of variety of types, like12 cultural sensitivity, and then the final13 piece was proofreading. So I'm not14 actually sure -- the RFP didn't speak to15 what percentages could actually be parsed16 out to that type of agency.17
Were there22 any disadvantaged for-profit firms that23 bid on it?24
Yes. We actually25 276 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 awarded the contract to one -- we awarded2 the RFP to three agencies. One of them3 was Rosales Communications, and they are4 an OEO-certified minority-owned business.5
Point of6 information. You said Dallas7 Communications?8
Yeah. In the end,14 there were five services we needed.15 Three contracts were awarded to provide16 those five services.17
I don't have the20 number offhand. Actually, the Health21 Federation contract is a little bit under22 a million. It's at 882,000. The23 transfer for translations contract, which24 is for document translation, is at about25 277 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 185K, and the Rosales contract is at2 43,500.3
For those4 not-for-profit contracts that exceed5 $100,000, do we know if the firm is6 currently in compliance with the City's7 living wage and benefits standard?8
I don't think we9 know that right now. I'm aware that10 you've asked that question and I know11 that we're going to work to get you that12 information. Obviously we're going to13 comply with what the law requires, and I14 certainly would expect our contractors to15 do the same.16
If you could17 just forward all that information through18 the Chair.19
Thank you24 very much.25 278 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 The Chair recognizes Councilman2 Kelly.3
-- Director.8 Before I have any questions, I just want9 to thank you and your Chief of Staff,10 Brian Abernathy. I know I as well as11 other members -- in fact, Councilman12 Greenlee feels the same as I do, that13 this is an issue with animal care that's14 been overlooked for many, many years.15 And I mean no disrespect for our Health16 Commissioner, Dr. Schwarz, because he has17 had higher priorities. He has to take18 care of the health of all the citizens of19 this city. I understand that. But I20 think by transferring this, as I probably21 urged people to do many years ago, I22 think this is a step in the right23 direction. I think that it's going to24 improve animal care in the City, and I25 279 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 think with your support and your2 effort -- and I know I want to just3 mention that your Chief of Staff, Brian4 Abernathy, has done a heck of a job.5 He's still working on this problem, and6 with both of your input, I know it's7 going to be a good deal. I really want8 to tell you that firsthand.9
Now, since12 it is going to be transferred, I just13 want to get an update on the transfer14 itself, where it is at this point.15
At the16 beginning of the fiscal year, for the17 first six months, the Health Department18 started to wind down their operations of19 Animal Care and Control as I started20 getting my feet wet, for lack of a better21 term. Beginning January 1, I began to22 take more of a leadership role, both in23 the Animal Advisory Committee as well as24 with ACCT. That is continuing. So the25 280 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Health Department and our office are2 still jointly working on Animal Care and3 Control. As of July 1st, beginning of4 the new fiscal year, Animal Control being5 fully within our purview.6
I keep on7 hearing rumors to the effect that the8 current provider of animal care in the9 City may not renew their contract for10 next year or the year after, and I just11 want to know if you have made any plans12 for alternatives.13
It is our14 understanding that the Pennsylvania SPCA15 would not like to renew. They have16 agreed, however, to stay on for an17 additional six months, January 1st. As18 you know, Councilman, the summer is the19 heavy month for shelter control. So they20 have agreed to stay on through the summer21 as we go through a transition period.22 We're currently exploring what23 potential options there are. Really24 those kind of divide into two categories.25 281 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 One is working with a new not-for-profit.2 As you know, there's not many3 not-for-profits in the region that could4 handle this type of contract. So it5 would require us to partner with the SPCA6 PAWS to create a new not-for-profit that7 could bid on this type of contract. The8 other alternative is to --9
Well, I think12 that's one of the questions that we need13 to work through. For the last decade,14 there's been four transitions in Animal15 Care and Control. That's a long-term16 concern. I think the continuous17 provision of animal care is important to18 the City and has put everyone in a19 difficult position. The situation that20 Dr. Schwarz took over when he came in to21 office was very difficult, and I think22 Izzat Melhem and his Chief of Staff, Nan23 Feyler, did an excellent job given the24 circumstances, as well as Sue Cosby at25 282 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 the SPCA.2 My long-term goal is to make3 sure that that type of transition doesn't4 happen again after I'm gone and the next5 Managing Director is here, and that's6 exactly what we're trying to nail down7 and figure out.8
Well, that's9 refreshing to hear, I tell you. I had my10 differences with some of the people that11 you just mentioned, but let bygones be12 bygones. But in any case, I wanted to13 thank you for your effort in this, and I14 will pledge my, of course, full support15 in making the City the first no-kill city16 in the East Coast, and that's what our17 agenda is and our plan.18
Understand.19 And thank you, Councilman. You and your20 staff have been great to work with, and21 it's appreciated.22
I'd be23 remiss if I didn't mention another person24 and I just saw him here today, is Tom25 283 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Conway with the CLIP program. I think2 he's done an excellent job. He has for3 years. He's one of the guys that's been4 overlooked, and I think not enough people5 give him credit where he should get6 credit. But I do think that -- I can7 tell you from my staff and I'm sure there8 are other Councilmembers' staffs that he9 has performed -- he has given us an10 excellent, excellent service over the11 years, and I just wanted to point that12 out. I have no complaints with13 Mr. Conway or his department at this14 point.15
Thank you very16 much. I know Rina is concerned that his17 heading is getting way too big at this18 point. She's over there pinching him,19 I'm sure. But thank you very much. We20 all feel the same way about Tom.21
Tommy owes22 me a beer. Thank you.23 Thank you, Madam Chair.24
You're25 284 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 welcome.2 Next, the Chair recognizes3 Councilman Greenlee.4
Thank5 you. Thank you, Madam Chair.6 I want to just second7 Councilman Kelly's comments on both. And8 this actually was the longest hearing9 that you've had, the Managing Director10 and the budget, that we haven't mentioned11 Tom Conway. So pretty good.12 Mr. Negrin, I just want to13 bring up something you and I talked about14 on the phone, and I know you had another15 person in your staff -- I don't know if16 she's here today -- that talked to me17 about it, and that was the issue of the18 feeding on the Parkway, feeding of the19 people on the Parkway. And I know you, I20 think, basically -- I just want to make21 sure for the record I'm clear. The22 ultimate goal is to try to find a23 location, not just where folks can get24 food but also to get other services. Is25 285 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 that basically the long-term or hopefully2 even shorter-term goal?3
I think that's4 exactly right, but I can have Don kind of5 update you on where we are.6 COUNCILMAN GREENLEE:7 Dr. Schwarz? Okay. Sure.8
Don Schwarz,9 Deputy Mayor for Health and Opportunity.10 Councilman, we have been11 working to identify alternative12 locations, and we have done the13 background work that the City needs to14 do, looking both at the public health15 issues related to feeding. The Law16 Department has worked looking at what has17 happened in other jurisdictions around18 the country, what would need to be in19 place in order to be fair, both to the20 feeders and those who eat, and to assure21 that we could provide continuity for22 them, but in some way regulate the space23 where feeding occurs. We're very24 concerned both about the quality of the25 286 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 food so that people aren't getting2 sick -- many of these people have no3 place to go -- and concerned about the4 issues related to the environment; that5 is, both what else is going on around6 where feeding occurs and the cleanliness7 and issues related to public health and8 things like rats and other animals.9
Any location11 would have to be wheelchair accessible to12 people who have any sort of mobility13 issues.14 So we have looked at a large15 number of locations. There have been a16 number of issues with them, but we've17 done the other work and I think should be18 able to move forward in the spring.19
In the20 spring? Okay. That's encouraging.21 Because we particularly hear -- I know I22 hear, because I don't live that far from23 there, from the Logan Square people. And24 in fairness to them, they're not somebody25 287 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 that said, Get them all out and all that,2 but they are concerned about a lot of the3 issues you just raised and that is sort4 of their neighborhood.5 But you raise an interesting6 point. You said you looked at other7 cities. Is there one particular city or8 a couple cities that seem to have gotten9 it kind of right, in your opinion?10 You're shaking your head no.11
The reason to12 look at other cities is because many13 cities have done it wrong. An immediate14 response often is to simply say that the15 good-willed individuals who provide food16 for others are inherently wrong, and that17 approach clearly has neither been18 appropriate nor have the courts upheld19 that kind of approach. We've wanted to20 be sure that anything we did would meet21 the legal test.22
And would be24 respectful of the many people who, from25 288 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 their own heart, want to help others who2 are less fortunate.3
And4 certainly I wouldn't advocate and I think5 most people -- I wouldn't say everybody,6 but most people are not advocating that,7 but I think you're right. I think8 finding something else.9 And what would be -- last10 question. What would be like ideally11 what you're looking for? You don't have12 to give me -- I know you're not going to13 give me a location, but the kind of14 services if you could design the perfect15 spot, what kind of services would be16 provided.17
We'd like a spot18 that is reasonably close to where feeding19 currently goes on, so that it's not20 perceived as an inconvenience either to21 the feeders or those who are eating. It22 needs to be a place where folks who are23 coming to provide food feel comfortable24 bringing their car, parking their car,25 289 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 can safely from their vehicle feed. It2 would need to be a place where we can3 control those who feed, because one of4 the things we're very interested in doing5 is assuring that those people who feed6 are in some way permitted or certified,7 so that we know they've been trained to8 handle food appropriately. We would like9 to be sure that there are public10 restrooms available in some way and11 running water.12
And adequate14 space for people in an orderly fashion to15 both feed and eat. And then we need to16 have a space that we can clean and a17 space where folks both who feed and who18 eat can be securely let in and let out,19 if you will, or made available and people20 can leave so that no one lingers behind21 in a way that would be harmful to them,22 for instance, or to the place.23
And24 you're talking about an inside place or25 290 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 not necessarily?2
No. We have3 inside feeding locations. The folks who4 choose to feed on the Parkway have not5 wanted to feed indoors, and their belief6 is that many of the people who feed7 outdoors don't wish to eat indoors.8
I don't know the11 general reason, but I can tell you that12 in other cities, it has been upheld by13 the court that people who have their own14 goodwill feed outdoors should be allowed15 to continue to feed outdoors.16
I'm not17 talking about the legal. I'm just18 thinking why would people not want to be19 inside, if nothing else, and out of the20 elements?21
Okay. I23 know we can't answer all that today. I24 understand. Thank you. Thank you both.25 291 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Thank you, Madam Chair.2
Let me ask3 a question before we go to Councilwoman4 Brown. The revenue estimates for the5 Five Year Plan include $1.4 million a6 year generated by the Managing Director's7 Office starting in Fiscal Year 2012 and8 continuing through Fiscal Year 2016 for9 strategic marketing fees. What are these10 fees and will this initiative require11 City Council approval?12
Deputy Mayor13 Cutler is going to answer your question14 in just one minute.15 (Witness approached witness16 table.)17 DEPUTY
Good18 morning -- afternoon. Evening almost.19 Deputy Mayor Rina Cutler, Transportation20 and Utilities.21 We have a new street furniture22 contract which was awarded a short time23 ago, several months ago. We are24 envisioning for this year -- and I25 292 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 actually brought it, so hang on a second.2 We are expecting -- well, let3 me back up. The previous contract, the4 annual revenue over the past five years5 was roughly about 532,000 a year. We're6 expecting the new contract this year to7 generate about 845,000. It's not a full8 year. And in the second year, somewhere9 between 1 and 1.5 million dollars in10 revenue. So that is the new street11 furniture contract. And I would like to12 say, because we're actually very proud of13 it, that the new street furniture14 contract has a 50 percent DBE rate.15
Is that a16 contract that was for three years, or how17 is the contract structured?18 DEPUTY
No. I19 believe it's a one year with two20 one-year renewals -- three one-year21 renewals. You might -- there's actually22 a little explanation here. We actually23 went out with an RFP for a new street24 furniture contract and got no responsive25 293 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 bidders. We met individually with the2 three or four major companies that do it,3 and the economy was just not right for4 the kind of intense capital investment5 that really needs to happen with a street6 furniture contract. So based on the7 recommendations from the industry, we8 pulled back and said, Let's issue a very9 short-term contract, wait for the economy10 to improve and then go back out again11 with the full-blown contract. So the one12 we advertised and awarded this year does13 not have the kind of capital investment14 street furniture contracts tend to have,15 which is to replace the bus shelters and16 add new ones. So that component came out17 of the contract. And so it was purely an18 advertising/revenue generation until such19 time as the economy improves and we can20 go back out for a full-blown RFP.21
Are you22 going to bring that to Council to discuss23 at any point? Could we see the contract?24 DEPUTY
The5 full-blown one is for a five-year period.6 So we will be back. We will be in7 Council when we go out to bid for that.8
All right.9 Do you have an OEO component to that?10 DEPUTY
Yes.11 There is a 50 percent DBE requirement,12 and we expect to meet it.13
The18 current one.19 DEPUTY MAYOR CUTLER:20 Absolutely.21
Thank you.22 Mr. Negrin, some time ago we23 had a meeting over in Logan. There was a24 meeting in Logan, and you offered to put25 295 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 up surveillance cameras. Did those2 cameras go up?3
They did. I4 offered to put them up within 30 days,5 and I know they were up before that.6
So is7 there any way we could have you review8 those cameras to see -- because the9 problem over there is dumping. Have we10 utilized the cameras to see if we could11 identify those people who are dumping?12
Yes. Tommy Conway13 has actually followed through on that for14 me. I could ask Tommy to come up and15 address that specifically.16
There is17 another site. I think I may have sent18 you an e-mail, Newtown Road.19
It's cost21 us a lot of money for cleanup. The22 community group that used to do the23 cleanup is not operating because of the24 age of the participants. So we need25 296 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 something. It's a terrible place in2 terms of dumping.3
You're welcome.9 Thomas Conway, Deputy Managing Director.10 With regards to the11 surveillance cameras being placed by, I12 believe it was, a church off of Roosevelt13 Boulevard, we had them placed there14 probably about 30 days. We did not catch15 anybody in -- we didn't catch any license16 plates with regards to apprehension of17 the individuals dumping. It is a wide18 street. It's a wide area. The cameras19 are only really good when you're at a20 dead-end location, whereas you can see21 the car either getting down to the22 location, short dumping, either turning23 around.24 In Pennsylvania, we only have25 297 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 the license plates on the back of the2 vehicle. So it's very hard to apprehend3 short dumpers, all short dumpers, I4 should say, with regards to the vehicles.5 Therefore, we didn't catch anybody at6 that location.7
We did place the10 cameras there and we did clean up the11 location. We've kept an eye on it. This12 is the location that we do have a weed13 killer contract with regards to the14 outskirts of the Jersey barriers in that15 location.16
Thank you,22 Madam Chair.23 Quick follow-up to Councilman24 Goode's questions. On the $1 million to25 298 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 the Health Federation, is that a local2 non-profit?3
Might you6 know the name of the Executive Director?7 I'm only checking to see if it's the8 same.9
Could you10 speak into the mike, please, to answer11 your questions.12 And Councilwoman Brown, is your13 mike on?14
So totally25 299 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 off topic but also can be very revealing.2 As a part of the review process, do you3 look at composition of Boards, the makeup4 of the Board of non-profits that5 ultimately do business with the City?6
Okay.9 Well, the reason why I raise that10 question is because I know that there's11 some non-profits that the City does12 business with and the Board in no way13 looks like the City of Philadelphia, and14 that raises red flags for me, because15 then if you reach deep, are they16 Philadelphia residents, do they care17 about Philly. Yet you have a non-profit18 getting these huge profits in the City of19 Philadelphia and they don't look like the20 City where they're being fed. So that's21 why I raise the question.22 And so what I hear you saying23 is that it is not a part of the standard24 operating procedure of department heads25 300 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 to look at Boards. It's simply not2 something that you think about or look3 to?4
Okay.7 That's fair.8 This is totally off topic and9 not something I typically ask about or,10 quite frankly, care about, but we get11 this type of question in the office, so I12 need to raise it. It's even awkward for13 me to ask it, but I have to because we've14 gotten -- it's a constituent service15 matter.16 Over the past several years, my17 office has consistently received calls18 regarding the rampant increase in raccoon19 population going on in many of our20 communities, particularly those areas21 around the park. So provide some detail22 regarding the transfer of Animal Control23 to your department.24
Did you want me25 301 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 to address the raccoon question2 specifically or...3
Raccoons5 specifically are actually considered wild6 animals by the state, and our Animal7 Control officers are encouraged not to8 deal with raccoons unless they're9 actually physically within a home.10
In a backyard13 or an alley, the state actually14 encourages our Animal Control officers15 not to engage.16
So then20 the standard operating procedure for a21 property owner to do is what?22
There's a23 couple -- they can certainly call 3-1-1.24 It also depends on the specific25 302 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 circumstance. Raccoons are attracted to2 open garbage. So there's certainly steps3 that -- we're working on putting together4 a pamphlet for property owners to follow5 to deal with the problem of what attracts6 a raccoon to a specific property. And7 the SPCA is working with us on putting8 together that information, which we'll9 certainly distribute when we have it.10
So the11 when, when do you expect that? And I'm12 asking because we get the question, and13 neighbors who are terrorized by the sight14 of one anyhow really do not know what to15 do.16
I will get you17 a timeline. I don't have a timeline18 today.19
And I'll just21 comment, because I don't think this is22 all that silly, because Brian has23 educated me on this quite a bit.24 Raccoons are dangerous animals. If they25 303 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 are trapped or cornered around someone's2 property, they should call and make sure3 that -- I mean, we'll try to do whatever4 we can. So the state requires us or5 encourages us not to be involved with6 them, but to the extent that they're7 going to have somebody there and try to8 help them with their issue, the City will9 show up and try to help them. I mean, I10 don't want --11
The City will.14 And it's a fine line, because we're not15 responsible and we're not going to sit16 here and say that we are, because the17 state specifically tells us not to be.18 But if it's a dangerous situation and19 you've got a raccoon stuck or under your20 porch or in your yard and it's an issue21 that you need help with, you can call the22 City of Philadelphia.23
Absolutely.25 304 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 And I'm going beyond that. Property2 owners are also encouraged to call3 exterminators. There's actually4 exterminators that specialize in raccoon5 removal.6
I didn't7 know that. And so then what type of --8 after the transfer, what type of changes9 will be made to Animal Control?10
At the outset,11 very few changes will be made. The SPCA12 will continue to operate the Animal Care13 and Control Center on Huntingdon Avenue.14 Going forward, as the SPCA leaves the15 contract, we will either put together a16 new not-for-profit or provide another17 alternative situation to provide care and18 control for animals.19
Okay.20 Well, thank you for that. That's it for21 me. Thank you very much.22
Thank you,24 Madam Chair.25 305 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Thank you2 very much.3 The Chair recognizes Councilman4 Jones.5
Thank you6 again and once again for your endurance7 to be able to take this once a year or8 twice a year or whatever it is.9 A couple of quick questions.10 In light of post 9/11 and one of our own11 being selected from the emergency12 management team to go and be a part of13 the federal team, which speaks well of14 the City of Philadelphia, what are our15 current agreements with the eight16 counties surrounding Philadelphia? A lot17 of light was drawn to our commitment to18 Camden and in fact wanted to get a sense19 of what those interlocking relationships20 are.21
And also24 thank you guys, and particularly the25 306 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Deputy Mayor there, for when the floods2 hit Main Street the first time and the3 second time, a freshman Councilman kind4 of panicked. I was like Paul Revere, The5 flood is coming, the flood is coming, and6 had to be educated that you don't --7
The freshman8 Managing Director did as well, just so9 you know.10
Well, I11 don't feel alone. Because I had to be12 educated about the fact that you don't13 start the fire trucks pumping until the14 river starts to recede. And so I'm15 yelling at the top of my voice on the16 phone saying, You know, when are we going17 to start those trucks pumping water out18 of there? And I want to thank you for19 calmly explaining to me that if you pump20 it out and it's still pouring back in, it21 will still come back in. And so those22 physics and engineering specs were23 appreciated by a freshman. So thank you.24 But I would like to know about25 307 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 those emergency management agreements2 and, in light of that, offer some3 suggestions about working with District4 Councilpeople and Councilpeople at-large5 so that at least we don't get in the way6 and so that there is an official7 communication.8 Now, unofficially you did a9 great job. You know how to reach me,10 talked me off of the ledge, the whole11 bit, but it just underscores and brings12 to light that as an elected body, people13 come to us for information, and that14 information should at least be accurate.15 (Witness approached witness16 table.)17 DEPUTY
Thank18 you, Councilman. Everett Gillison,19 Deputy Mayor for Public Safety.20 Yes. We have a number of21 different memorandums of understanding22 with our five county and, as you said,23 eight area, because the MOUs extend not24 only to the counties, Montgomery, Bucks,25 308 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Delaware and Chester, but also New2 Jersey, Maryland and Delaware. We have3 been working together with the Southeast4 Task Force where all of these things in5 an emergency management situation is6 practiced. We've been part of that --7 since I took this chair, we've been part8 of that. It's been going on since at9 least 2006 with the previous10 Administration, highlighting what we're11 doing in emergency management. But that12 is something that is ongoing. The Mayor13 has made it a point to work with our14 suburban counterparts, part of the Metro15 Caucus that he has not only been part of16 but helped form. And so from an17 executive to executive positions, those18 things are going on. And at the19 operational level, we maintain an active20 participation in the Task Force as we go21 forward.22 The benefit has been immense.23 We get quite a bit of money through grant24 money through our UASI, allocations from25 309 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Homeland Security. I hope one day to be2 able to announce some of the things we've3 been working on for the past three years4 that are just about ready to come into5 fruition, which I think will place us in6 a very key role for homeland security and7 emergency management for this area.8 Philadelphia is the core, and9 we are taking a lot of steps to make sure10 that we work together across the area and11 across the jurisdictions. So those12 things happen. They happen on -- we13 train with people. We communicate. They14 have asked me to come out on many15 occasions, because obviously all of these16 folks, whether it's Police, Fire or17 Emergency Management, report to me. So I18 go out quite often. Not only do I talk,19 but we help train and do tabletop20 exercises. All of that happens and21 happens on a regular basis. But I'll be22 glad to not only give information to the23 Chair, but I can provide it to the24 District Councilpersons or even anyone,25 310 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 if you'd like to see a list of things2 that are coming up, if you'd like to take3 a look at it.4
I guess,5 Mr. Gillison, what I'm thinking more of6 is a briefing that could be provided for7 Council. I share borders with other8 counties. You talk about Montgomery9 County, Delaware County that we share10 borders with. Councilwoman Blackwell,11 Councilwoman Tasco shares borders with12 Cheltenham. It would be interesting to13 know what kinds of relationships we have.14 We have a major water treatment15 plant on City Avenue. If in fact we were16 overwhelmed for some reason, is there a17 relationship with the surrounding18 counties to render assistance to us?19 DEPUTY MAYOR GILLISON:20 Correct.21
And22 conversely, is there a relationship where23 if they're overwhelmed. And so to24 understand, without jeopardizing any25 311 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 homeland security stuff, that a local2 Councilperson is educated about that.3 Second, in cases of disaster --4 and, God, please let there not be any --5 but what is the role of a Darrell Clarke6 in the 5th Councilmanic District? Where7 would he report to? How does he plug in8 to be helpful, if nothing more than to9 dispense information? I know in your10 mind you're saying, Just get out the way,11 but sometimes --12 DEPUTY
But15 sometimes as the public reaches out to a16 Councilman Clarke for information because17 they assume he would know, it is good18 that he's not giving false information or19 bad information or creating a panic. And20 so if we're given those kinds of -- and21 you've done a good job with that in the22 past, but I think it's time to formalize23 that.24 DEPUTY
And figure2 ways that Councilman Clarke knows that if3 something happens -- I mean, I had a4 disturbing request. Homeland Security5 wanted to know my address post the6 shooting of the Congresswoman, which, you7 know, we live in a real world now, but8 it's important for Councilman Clarke or9 Councilman Greenlee and others to say,10 All right, in cases like this, you might11 want to report to this recreation center,12 this police center to be briefed, and13 that kind of planning prevents chaos in14 bad situations, because all of us know15 what our roles and relationships are.16 DEPUTY
I will17 make sure that that happens. That18 briefing will happen, and I will give you19 the normative stuff. I think in the20 catastrophic area what normally happens21 is, we do have these programs and plans22 that go into effect, and mutual aid is23 ready to go in case of catastrophic24 matters. But I believe that I will take25 313 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 that to heart and I will provide2 something to the Chair.3
We've had a4 shared experience. It was slightly less5 than catastrophic, but during the SEPTA6 strike, we had a railcar come and catch7 fire. Passengers were evacuated safely.8 The emergency management team was on the9 ground, boots on the ground. The Fire10 Department, everyone -- and I had an11 opportunity to share that with you, and12 we were able to put out some positive13 information, because people believed, Oh,14 was this subterfuge, sabotage. We were15 able to dispel that. It was just an16 electrical fire.17 DEPUTY
But in that19 case, it worked well. In other -- and it20 was less than catastrophic, but it was21 pretty bad. We had to divert traffic. I22 mean, all of those things and steps that23 go into that in a way that could be24 organized a bit better. It happened25 314 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 well, but suppose there were five of them2 at once.3 DEPUTY
We're4 ready, and we actually practiced -- did5 those kinds of things.6
I9 agree. But I will definitely get that10 briefing to you.11
You may23 have touched on this. I'm sorry for not24 being here during your entire testimony.25 315 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Where are we with the vacant lot program2 in terms of timeline, when we'll be able3 to talk to people about the issues?4
It will be5 interesting for me to see if that's6 changed in the last 20 minutes since he7 talked about that last time.8
We're still9 working through a number of details, and10 hopefully within the next month or so, we11 can come back to City Council and provide12 those details as we look through some of13 the policies and the recommendations we14 originally put together and some more15 meat on the bones that we've already16 outlined.17
Well,18 details to the level that a person that19 was given a property under the old Gift20 Property Program and somehow through the21 changes of policy over the years are now22 being told that they must pay fair-market23 value for a lot that they have taken care24 of for the last four or five years.25 316 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 That's the specificity --2
Sure. We3 can -- if there's a specific case, I4 think both Bridget and I --5
Not a6 specific case. I don't want to deal with7 specific cases.8
Any application9 that was put through VPRC and already10 approved by VPRC should be transferred11 under the original terms and conditions12 that were originally agreed to.13
And certainly23 there's a backlog, as everyone in24 Chambers knows. There's a significant25 317 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 backlog.2
Okay.7 Great. And moving forward, the specifics8 as we move forward will be spelled out in9 the next --10
I would at11 least provide more specifics than we12 already have in the next -- within the13 next four weeks or so. Obviously there's14 a lot of moving parts here, and as15 everybody knows and we're trying to -- we16 want to get our I's dotted and our T's17 crossed and get it right the first time.18
All right.19 In terms of fair-market sales, will there20 be consistency as it relates to the21 appraisal process? And I tell you why I22 ask this question. I have an individual23 who is currently going through a process24 of acquiring a property, one lot25 318 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 property, one house lot, vacant lot in2 Strawberry Mansion. They're being told3 that it's $9,000. Three blocks away the4 City is moving to acquire a similarly5 sized parcel, probably the same size, and6 the appraisal is coming back at $16,000.7 So my question is, how does the8 appraisal process work as it relates to9 different agencies? One is the RDA. The10 other is VPRC, which is housed under11 OHCD.12
Because14 part of this strategy was supposed to15 have some consistency as it relates to16 guidelines and policy,17 disposition/acquisition. So right now,18 I'm dealing with two properties, same19 size, three blocks away, and you got a20 difference in this particular case of21 $7,000.22
Sure. And23 there could be a number of reasons for24 the differences in those appraisals,25 319 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 including location, the surrounding --2
Understood, but5 depending on the properties directly6 adjacent.7 Having said that, appraisals8 should be consistent throughout the9 agencies, and we are creating an appeals10 process for it, because appraisals are11 subjective. There's going to be times12 where those appraisals are -- could be13 interpreted differently. The14 circumstances could be interpreted15 differently, and we need to --16
But, Brian,17 that's what we're supposed to be18 eliminating, because that's been a19 challenge as it relates to the years that20 I've been involved in this, which has21 been a lot. You had these appraisals,22 one block $50,000 and -- give you the23 case of the Cecil B. Moore area, 33rd24 Street, somebody bought a lot for $4,500.25 320 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 The City goes out and appraises it. They2 want to sell a similarly sized lot for3 $30,000.4 So a part of the issue as it5 relates to what we've asked you guys to6 do and you guys have taken it upon7 yourself to do is consistency in the8 appraisal process, disposition.9
Councilman, I'm10 agreeing with you. We need to come up11 with consistent appraisal processes and12 consistent appraisals across the board13 and across different agencies. At times14 there are going to be situations where15 your constituent or you disagree with the16 appraisal that the City comes back with,17 and we need to have a release valve, and18 that's something that we don't have19 today. I think most members of Council20 have one situation or another where the21 RDA or Public Property or PHDC come back22 with an appraisal that you think is out23 of whack, and to date, there hasn't been24 a relief valve to take that complaint to.25 321 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 We need to create that release valve2 to --3
I don't4 want a relief valve. I want a standard5 put in place that you will come up with6 consistent appraisals based on the7 size --8
We're going to9 do both, Councilman. What I'm saying is,10 we're doing both. Because we might agree11 90 percent of the time. There's going to12 be 10 percent where we're going to have a13 disagreement, and we need to find a way14 to deal with that disagreement.15
The reason19 why I keep pressing this, because I get20 my NTI acquisition form that was sent to21 me two days ago and I'm getting ready to22 sign it and actually saw that it was23 $44,000 was the total, but 20 of it was24 attributed to advertisement, which is25 322 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 another issue, but the $16,000 is like2 where is that coming from? So I now have3 to make a decision do I sign off on an4 appraisal that I think that's inaccurate5 because we're trying to sell something to6 somebody down the street for 9,000 or run7 the risk of blowing the deal where we're8 going to build 30 houses on the 28009 block of Oakdale Street? So it's a10 little sense of urgency.11
I understand12 that, Councilman, and in that case13 specifically, we're not going to have a14 policy that's going to be able to address15 your case specifically in a timely manner16 that's going to be able to solve your17 problem. I'm not going to pretend that18 we're going to.19
And, again,22 we're putting that in place, Councilman.23 We don't have it right now. We can take24 a look at both appraisals --25 323 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Let me cut2 to the chase. What do I do with this3 situation?4
That's why I5 said, if you were interested in a6 specific circumstance, let's take a look7 at it and see if we can't solve it.8
All right.9 Okay.10 With respect to one of the11 issues that unfortunately I have to deal12 with on a consistent basis, this whole13 vacant lot, maintenance, cleaning, the14 whole nine yards, and I always see in the15 testimony a reference to CLIP, which for16 years we've talked about having a17 citywide strategy utilizing CLIP, but we18 just can't afford it. At some point I'd19 like to see us come up with something20 under CLIP and above where we are, so21 maybe we can expand our opportunities.22
Sure. I23 actually think if I can get Bridget to24 come up and kind of talk through our25 324 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 enforcement strategy.2
That's a3 follow-up to this particular question,4 but sure.5 (Witness approached witness6 table.)7
What I'd8 like to have from you all, if you go back9 this far in terms of detailing the10 equipment, the amount of equipment, be it11 vans for transport, heavy equipment or12 all of the things that the guys with13 those trucks with the big box -- I don't14 know what you call them -- to carry all15 of the equipment that the vacant lot16 guys, as we refer to them as, the17 equipment that they had ten years ago18 versus where we are. The assumption is19 that it's decreased dramatically based on20 what I've heard from the guys and all the21 people associated with the program, in22 addition to which the reduction in person23 power over that same year, ten-year24 period, and I'd like to see that in25 325 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 writing. You can give me an answer now,2 because I want to start documenting some3 of the reductions as it relates to4 equipment and person power.5
When we first6 started the vacant lot program back in7 2001, 2002, we had roughly 100 people for8 the vacant lot program alone. Right now9 we have about 42.10 With regards to the equipment11 that you're talking about, they're12 enclosed trailers that we have that we13 use for transporting the equipment. The14 equipment consists of swishers, which are15 basically weed whackers on wheels; DR16 mowers, which you see commercials on TV,17 which are them orange machines that work18 very well; and just regular weed19 whackers. And then we do have one20 front-end loader, one dump truck and four21 trash trucks, but that's for the entire22 programs that we have, including CLIP,23 vacant lot and the community services24 program.25 326 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
All of6 those categories. And if you don't have7 the specific --8
Yeah. I don't9 have all the specifics right now, but a10 lot of the equipment is still the same11 equipment that we've had from the very12 beginning.13
That's what18 I'm asking. I'm trying to see the19 decline in your capability. Because, I20 mean, you know, I do talk to these guys.21
We can -- I can22 provide you with the information, but,23 again, I did put a wish list together for24 Fleet Management.25 327 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
I need to2 get that document and send it through the3 Chair on all of the equipment and4 personnel losses for the last ten years.5
Okay. The one6 good point is with regards to Fleet7 Management, I will put a shout-out to8 Jimmy Muller. Our power washers for the9 Anti-Graffiti Network when I started in10 1996, we still have two of them11 operational, which is pretty impressive.12
Fleet Management15 did a good job with maintaining what we16 did have.17
They're18 holding my ten-year-old City car together19 with public help.20
Can I have25 328 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 a point of information on that?2 We get a lot of complaints3 about the businesses with graffiti on4 their buildings, and I understand that5 they are responsible for removing the6 graffiti. If they don't have the7 wherewithal to do it, is there any way we8 could charge them for that service?9
The Anti-Graffiti10 Network is a free service for private as11 well as public businesses. They can12 contact us through 3-1-1 if they want to13 speak to a live operator, visit our14 website at www.phila.gov/qualityoflife.15
So you16 provide the service already to the17 public?18
I always hold23 Tommy to 24 hours. So you can tell that24 to folks.25 329 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
I do want2 to commend the graffiti guys and the3 vacant lot guys based on their4 capabilities in terms of resources.5 Graffiti responses have been great.6 Although I would like to see us change7 our strategy, because this is an ongoing8 issue as it relates to we clean it, it's9 like a game, they come out the next day,10 they tag it, we clean it. And as you11 say, we're providing the service for12 free, so it is taxpayers' dollars. The13 old days we had undercover police14 officers. For whatever reason we don't15 do that anymore. Graffiti is at its16 highest point in quite some time. One,17 it would be nice if we can give some18 thought to that. Maybe not a police19 officer but maybe a SWEEPs officer so you20 don't want to take people off the street21 dealing with graffiti that need to be out22 on the street dealing with serious crime.23 And this recommendation that I made to24 somebody in government not too long ago,25 330 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 that we've seen successful cases where2 there was an issue or a person who had3 committed a crime or a person that has4 done one thing or another where there's a5 small reward put in the paper, a picture,6 and people -- if they know, they want the7 money, they're going to tell. And the8 thought was that a significant number of9 these graffiti artists, if that's what10 you want to call them, have very specific11 tags, particularly the ones that have12 these things all over the place. People13 know who they are. I thought that it14 might make sense for us to possibly get15 some of the most prolific taggers, put a16 picture in the paper, pay a small fee,17 probably wouldn't be as much as one18 graffiti removal given the manpower19 associated with the removal, and just see20 what happens, see if we get a call, a21 tipster saying, You know what, I'm22 telling on this guy, I don't even like23 this guy, and I can pick up a couple of24 bucks if I tell on him.25 331 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 I was given information three2 days ago about where apparently a number3 of them congregate before they come out4 and assault the neighborhood. So people5 know who these guys are. So I'm thinking6 maybe we can get a little creative in7 terms -- because this tit for tat, I8 mean, you know, it's like a game. They9 say, I'm going to tag it. We come out,10 we clean it. We got four or five guys.11 At some point we need to get outside of12 the box on this one.13
We do work with14 the Police Department's Neighborhood15 Services Division with regards to short16 dumping and graffiti surveillance. With17 regards to short dumping surveillance,18 we've issued 65 tickets, $300 tickets19 within the last two years, and the Police20 Department's Neighborhood Services21 Division made about 43 arrests for short22 dumping last two years.23 Graffiti, last year I think in24 2010 was about 15 arrests for graffiti25 332 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 vandalism. And, again, it's a big city.2 We only have about four officers that we3 coordinate with.4
That's how9 we cleaned it up before. We had very10 aggressive police officers, undercover,11 and we cleaned that issue up. And then12 once it got resolved, we took the13 officers away and put them back out on14 the street to fight crime. And it is15 back in a big way. I mean, it's not in16 just, quote/unquote, challenged17 neighborhoods. It's everywhere.18
It's throughout19 the whole City. And then the CLIP20 removal is our biggest deterrent at this21 time. As soon as it's seen, we ask22 people to report it, let us know where it23 is, because we do have a pretty rapid24 response with regards to removal.25 333 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
You guys2 respond. We call you all the time, but3 at some point, I really don't want to4 have to call you about that. You know5 what I mean? So if we can -- you and the6 Managing Director can kind of give us a7 written response to the possibility of8 looking at other strategies associated9 with that, please.10
My last16 question, I promise. Thank you, Madam17 Chair.18 My last question, I promise.19 And Councilman Clarke seems to be a real20 authority on tagging. I'm wondering in21 his youth in North Philly if he has some22 practical experience there.23
I was wondering24 the same thing.25 334 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
You seemed2 like an expert, Councilman Clarke, on the3 whole tagging thing from back in the day.4 All right. What I wanted to5 ask about finally -- and this is wishful6 thinking. Councilwoman Tasco brought7 this issue up when I first came on board,8 and I joined her in my end of the9 district, alleys and driveways. I just10 thought we would end on that note to11 figure out is there light at the end of12 the tunnel budgetarily by way of alley13 lights, by way of alley cleanings and by14 way of potential projects such as15 driveway patching, paving or whatever.16 DEPUTY MAYOR CUTLER:17 Councilman Jones, Rina Cutler, Deputy18 Mayor, Transportation and Utilities.19 We have been -- we sent a crew20 out on the street for the last, I think,21 six weeks just trying to get our arms22 around costs, and we expect within the23 next 10 to 14 days to be able to come up24 with at least some estimation based on25 335 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 whether it's a row house versus a single2 versus square footage on the driveways.3 So we actually are trying to finish an4 analysis now that would highlight what5 the costs really are in terms of moving6 forward, and we have committed to7 Councilwoman Tasco that we would come8 back and try to create a process once we9 had our hands around the costs for this.10 So we will make sure that we get you in11 that loop as well.12
Thank you.13 We realize the realities of our budget,14 but wanted to keep this on the radar.15
I appreciate21 it. Because we think both in the case of22 alleys and the way of driveways, regular23 citizens but also our first responders24 have to travel those alleyways, and they25 336 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 need to be lit, they need to be safe for2 both the residents and someone, God3 forbid, a fireman or a policeman that has4 to go through them. And so it's on our5 radar, and I'm glad it's on yours.6
We've been7 working with the Streets Department and8 Ms. Cutler on this issue for the last9 three or four -- couple of months.10
Thank you.13 The Chair recognizes14 Councilwoman Brown.15
Bike16 sharing. There's a growing interest17 around those who are brave enough to ride18 bikes and their advocacy groups, who care19 about the notion of bike sharing and the20 likes. Could you just provide us an21 update on where we are as a city with22 bike lanes and all that type of response23 to that growing constituency group.24 DEPUTY
Yes,25 337 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Councilwoman. As you are aware, last2 year we did a pilot and made permanent3 segregated bike lanes on Pine and Spruce4 Street. We have just finished an5 analysis to try to identify two streets6 running north/south for the next set of7 bike lanes. And so we will shortly go8 into the community and start working with9 the community groups for the next two.10 Long term, there is a new bike11 plan, if you will, that came out of a12 collaborative effort with the City13 Planning Department. And so I'm happy to14 get you a copy of that, which sort of15 lays out the planning process for the16 next several years in terms of additional17 bike lanes.18
That's a20 different issue than the bike sharing21 program, which, as you are aware, there22 has been at least a small but vocal23 constituency to do a bike share program.24 It is very expensive. We have been25 338 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 working with the advocates to try to2 convince them -- and I think we finally3 have -- that it's probably not in the4 cards at this point for City dollars to5 be used for a bike share program given6 our limited resources and the list of7 needs for those dollars, but we have8 embarked on trying to figure out how9 potentially to raise money privately.10 And so there are folks out there trying11 to figure out how to fund a bike share12 program. And so it is certainly13 something we support. It is our14 expectation that at some point we will be15 able to get one underway, but it is not16 going to happen in the short term or with17 City dollars.18
The Chair25 339 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 recognizes Councilman Clarke.2
Thank you,3 Madam Chair.4 A couple of quick questions.5 Why is CLIP housed in the Division of6 Transportation and Utilities?7 DEPUTY
That8 change happened actually just before last9 year's budget process. Primarily because10 most of my agencies do operations, and11 the agency that is tied in the most12 closely with CLIP is Sanitation in terms13 of clean-ups and picking up the vacant14 lot stuff once it's done, and they have a15 lot of the same equipment, and so it was16 easy to put them both in the same17 operational group so that we could share18 those resources.19
So it's20 because of the Deputy Mayor being -- so21 it has more --22 DEPUTY
-- to do25 340 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 with the Deputy Mayor structure? Okay.2 DEPUTY
I was3 going to say everyone wants to work for4 me, but I'm not sure that's true.5
Just kind10 of follow-ups. The car share issue --11 I'm sorry. Let me get to the first12 issue. The bike sharing, is this the13 Russell Meddin issue?14 DEPUTY
He won't20 like the fact that you referenced him as21 a small but vocal group.22 DEPUTY
I'll make25 341 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 sure I tell him that.2 With respect to costs, we're3 going to be putting a proposal to you4 shortly on the car sharing issue. Right5 now we have -- what do we have, Zipcar6 and PhillyCarShare?7 DEPUTY
And one is10 a non-profit, which is PhillyCarShare; am11 I correct?12 DEPUTY
Councilman, we can19 get that whole breakdown for you on the20 car share piece on where Zipcar and21 PhillyCarShare.22
I thought2 your former tenure.3 I think PhillyCarShare is4 probably zero or close to. And the5 question, Zipcar is a for-profit, but we6 have been working on -- I've actually7 been talking to Councilman DiCicco. We8 have interested for-profit entities, and9 you probably know about this, essentially10 rental car companies who are interested11 in getting in the market, prepared to pay12 a reasonable amount in terms of a fee.13 The question is to what degree we can14 impose a fee or a rental for the actual15 space, because there's some question16 around who actually owns the space. But17 whatever governmental regulation we can18 put in place, they're prepared to pay for19 that, and my question is, would that be20 something we'd be willing to entertain if21 we have an entity that's going to provide22 the same service, electronically23 triggered vehicles, on the street,24 targeted areas around universities,25 343 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 places that make sense? Would that be2 something that the --3
I actually4 originally misunderstood your question.5 You're not talking about the City6 contract with Zipcar. You're talking7 about the Philly -- you're talking about8 car sharing on City streets, correct?9
Car sharing on11 City -- it depends, is the easy answer.12 I'm very aware that rental and some of13 the other car agencies are interested in14 having on-street parking for car sharing15 operations.16
I think we'd18 have to do additional research about what19 restrictions there are. If I recall from20 my time in Council, I think there's some21 state laws that have some restrictions on22 how that operates. I think we're happy23 to explore the situation and have a24 conversation with you further.25 344 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Yeah.2 Well, one of the issues is who actually3 owns the streets. There's some thought4 that the property owners'5 responsibilities; therefore, capabilities6 in terms of -- actually goes to the7 middle of the street. That's one of the8 things that was said.9 DEPUTY MAYOR CUTLER:10 Councilman, while it is certainly true11 that the property owner owns the sidewalk12 and their land may in fact go to the13 center of the street, curb to curb that14 is the City's right-of-way and we have15 the right to decide what goes into the16 City's right-of-way.17
And do we18 have the right to impose a fee for use of19 the right-of-way?20 DEPUTY
Well, we21 do for parking meters. So I think22 philosophically legally the answer is23 probably yes. I would just like to throw24 one sort of caveat out there.25 345 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 There are so many people,2 entities who want to use curb space who3 pay a fee to use curb space, that4 actually it's starting to get somewhat5 out of control in terms of taking up6 public parking on the street. So you've7 got valet operators who are charged a fee8 to use the public way. You've got no fee9 charged but disabled parking that gets to10 use the right-of-way in front of their11 homes. You've got contractors who get to12 use the right-of-way with the placards.13 You've got resident parking program.14 You've got a whole bunch of folks, buses,15 cabs. Now the Bolt and Mega Bus16 communities are looking for curb space as17 well.18 So for me, it's less a question19 of is it legal to charge a fee. I think20 the answer is absolutely, because we do21 for many of those functions. I think for22 me the real question is, at what point do23 we stop providing the public benefit by24 using that public property for private25 346 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 and public use other than public parking.2 So just a little tricky.3
And I4 understand that, and I can see how it can5 be potentially a challenge, but the whole6 premise around car share and subsequently7 Zip was to reduce the vehicles here8 generally, because people would be able9 to share this one vehicle. So that's the10 basis for authorizing the initial11 PhillyCarShare program.12 So my question is, if that13 would be the direction that we think14 makes some sense in terms of reducing the15 number of vehicles on the street,16 wouldn't it also make sense to entertain17 a proposition that would actually pay us18 a lot more that's being charged, which is19 not difficult to do if people aren't20 paying anything to currently park on the21 streets? And I think that's something22 that makes a lot of sense.23 DEPUTY
Well, we24 would need to look at it. My25 347 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 understanding -- and I'll go back and2 check the numbers and get the information3 to you. A lot of the current car sharing4 vehicles are off street. They are not --5 they are parked in parking lots. They6 are --7
There are8 some, but there are a whole lot of9 them --10 DEPUTY
I think11 the majority are off street, and I will12 get the numbers for you.13 The rental cars have the14 ability to house their own vehicles and15 still do car share, because they16 currently have garages for their rental17 cars.18
Is there a19 reason that we don't want to get more20 money? Because it seems like you're21 being argumentative.22 DEPUTY
No.23 Actually, in most cases, I'm fond of24 raising more money, but I think at some25 348 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 point one has to weigh the public benefit2 and how much money you could actually3 generate. And so if you could4 generate --5
Let me6 understand this. If PhillyCarShare and7 Zipcar is a public benefit and we're8 talking about the same operation,9 different person, entity, aren't they10 also a public benefit?11 DEPUTY
Well,12 they certainly could be. What I need to13 double-check is how many of those spaces14 are on the public right-of-way and how15 many of them are currently in private16 parking facilities. And I think the vast17 majority are in private parking18 facilities, but I will double-check that.19
And,20 Councilman, I think it's important to21 also remember how PhillyCarShare was22 originally founded, which was with23 significant public support. It was brand24 new. And I think that was one of the25 349 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 original reasons the fee was kept low.2
All right.3 It's not free to the public, though.4 DEPUTY
So what I'm7 talking about is an entity who is8 prepared to provide the same service that9 is prepared to pay.10
And I think the13 Deputy Mayor is more than willing to --14 sounds like we're willing to explore that15 option.16 DEPUTY
Yes. The17 only caveat I raised -- and I continue to18 raise it. It doesn't mean we wouldn't19 consider it, but is at some point -- and20 we're going through it now with valet21 zones. In the past, the policy has been22 that every single individual restaurant23 could apply for its own valet zone.24 Well, they grew like weeds, and so now25 350 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 there are large parts of the City in the2 evening where they only have valet zones.3 And so actually the question has come up4 as to whether or not valet zones should5 be shared rather than have to have6 individual restaurants with individual7 zones in order to have some ability to8 have public parking when people show up9 without having to pay $24 to go to a10 restaurant. So all I'm saying is, it11 just needs to be weighed as part of the12 equation.13
They can go14 get one of those car shares. They have a15 designated space for them, right?16 DEPUTY
It would17 be interesting to see if they'd pay as18 much as the valet guys. But, yes,19 certainly -- so that is the only caveat.20 It doesn't mean there aren't public21 benefits and we should not consider it.22 They will start to become eventually the23 same problem we're now having with Bolt24 Bus and Mega Bus. They started with one.25 351 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Now the private operators like Greyhound2 want to get in the market for that. They3 now want public on-street spaces.4 Everywhere you want to put them,5 neighbors say, Don't put them here. And6 so it's just a policy question of7 balance; that's all.8
All right.9 That's fair. If you can get that10 information.11 DEPUTY
You're15 welcome.16 Any more questions?17 (No response.)18
Thank you19 very much. We appreciate the testimony.20 MR. McPHERSON: The next21 department is the Records Department.22
Let the24 Records Department in, please. We got to25 352 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 go.2 Would you all please take your3 conversations outside. Thank you.4 (Witnesses approached witness5 table.)6
Good7 afternoon, Ms. Decker. You might want to8 summarize.9 COMMISSIONER DECKER: I shall.10 Thank you.11 Good afternoon, Councilwoman12 Tasco and members of City Council. My13 name is Joan Decker, Records14 Commissioner, and I have with me today15 Jeanne Reedy, who is the Administrative16 Services Director. And I will go very17 quickly and summarize.18 For FY12, the Records19 Department is requesting a General Fund20 operating budget of $4,009,212, which is21 a carry-forward of the Department's FY1122 estimated obligations. This budget23 reflects the following: Class 100,24 2,845,219; Class 200, 1,083,797; Class25 353 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 300 is $600,502; and Class 400 is 18,256;2 Class 500, 1,456.3 There is just an internal4 transfer of classes. So you'll see a5 little bit of an adjustment in the6 numbers.7 I think many of you are already8 familiar with our mission, so I won't9 repeat that.10 Some of the initiatives related11 to the Five Year Plan. As you probably12 know, the Records Department from FY0913 experienced a 48 percent budget14 reduction, which totaled $3,670,659. It15 was a breakdown of reduction of 2216 percent in Class 100, 71 percent in Class17 200, 69 percent in Class 300, and 8718 percent in Class 400. We had experienced19 some downsizing as a result of that,20 obviously.21 Just very quickly, through the22 different parts -- divisions of the23 Department. Document Recording, we have24 maintained a pretty quick turnaround25 354 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 time. We've used a number of tools,2 including optical character recognition,3 eRecording. Our eRecording volumes are4 up to 50 percent, which means great5 reductions and improvements in6 efficiencies, reductions in turnaround7 time.8 Our PhillyHistory website is9 very popular. We had approximately10 442,000 visitors this past fiscal year,11 and they made more than 2.4 million12 research requests and searches on the13 website. We now have a little over14 87,000 photographs, which are scanned and15 available online.16 Conservation in the archives.17 We continue to take care of the most18 valuable historical items in our19 collection, and probably most notable20 this year is participation of Civil War21 History Consortium, and one of the22 notable volumes is prison records, which23 really show the great challenge to the24 Fugitive Slave Act. So we worked with a25 355 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 lot of other historical institutions on2 that initiative.3 Document notice letters. This4 is the eighth year of our sending the5 document notice letters out for deeds and6 mortgages. We have sent approximately7 948,000 letters to date.8 We provide online access as9 much as possible to our records to10 provide customer service, quick11 turnaround time to our requestors. I've12 highlighted some of the records13 management initiatives that we have14 engaged in and completed.15 You know that we support some16 of the campaign finance and financial17 disclosures on an ongoing basis.18 Our minority participation goal19 of 25 percent was met and exceeded, and20 we're committed to that goal for the next21 fiscal year.22 And that pretty much sums up.23 That was a quick tour through our24 department. And I thank Council for25 356 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 their continuing support, and I'm here to2 answer any questions you may have.3
Thank7 you, Madam Chair.8 Very quickly. Good afternoon,9 Commissioner.10 COMMISSIONER DECKER: Good11 afternoon.12
Yesterday13 the Inspector General talked about some14 of her investigations and she talked15 about a couple of things in the Records16 Department. And just to preface, I know17 the vast majority of your employees are18 honest, hard-working, do a great job.19 But she talked about some of the things20 she recommended to you.21 Now, I don't know what you're22 free to tell us. I know you mention in23 your next-to-last paragraph about24 upgrading the cameras and that kind of25 357 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 thing. I know there was issue in the2 Accident Reporting Room.3 Is there anything you can tell4 us or forward later that kind of came out5 of that investigation that you're6 changing in the department?7 COMMISSIONER DECKER: Well, we8 already have made changes. The room was9 completely reorganized. There are no10 partitions. There are no internal11 partitions. The room is completely open.12 The staff is segregated from the13 commercial badge holders in the unit, and14 also from the walk-in customers. We have15 five security cameras, which tape and16 record everything that is ongoing. We17 have them over the cash register.18 We have implemented, I guess,19 stricter rules about engagement. The20 cameras are focused on the commercial21 badge users, who cannot really interact22 and whose every move is really closely23 observed.24
Okay.25 358 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Thank you.2 Thank you, Madam Chair.3
Thank you7 very much.8 COMMISSIONER DECKER: Thank9 you.10
This11 Committee will recess until tomorrow12 morning at 10:00 a.m.13 Thank you.14 (Committee of the Whole15 adjourned at 4:40 p.m.)16 - - -17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 359 1 CERTIFICATE2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the3 proceedings, evidence and objections are4 contained fully and accurately in the5 stenographic notes taken by me upon the6 foregoing matter on March 29, 2011, and that7 this is a true and correct transcript of same.8 9 10 11 12 --------------------13 MICHELE L. MURPHY14 RPR-Notary Public15 16 17 18 (The foregoing certification of this19 transcript does not apply to any reproduction20 of the same by any means, unless under the21 direct control and/or supervision of the22 certifying reporter.)23 24 25